chametz enthusiast

Decent lawyer. Mediocre actor. Inveterate political junkie. RTs confirm your darkest suspicions.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

This party's absolute inability to do anything right is amazing.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@AltJenFitz @ASFleischman Well, that’s not really relevant here, as the Department has recategorized messianics into the general “Jewish” category.

Meeting the needs of servicemembers isn’t the motive here.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@AltJenFitz @ASFleischman This analogy doesn’t work. Mormons and Nicene Christians agree that Jesus is divine, differing only on the nature of his relationship to God. Jews and “messianic” “Jews” differ on the very identity of the deity they worship.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@denimneverdies This is a Christian belief, not an “Abrahamic” one.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@VicinageClause @dilanesper I actually agree that the means-ends fit often fails (which is the only way enumerated rights are relevant). But I just don’t buy that gun regulations are “animus-motivated” in the way, e.g., the Romer case was.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@VicinageClause @dilanesper No, I’m saying there’s a rational basis to be afraid of guns in the way there is not a rational basis for being afraid of gay people.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@VicinageClause @dilanesper I dunno, man.

I think “guns” pose some negative externalities that “homosexuals” just simply do not.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@ponieboy_ @Snabblie @WilliamTaborDDS Of course it was. Why would you accept a payout that was less than the fair market value of your car?

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@eleftherus @Calrath03 how’d that work out

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@RaulSoto @Uzonna7 Not quite. It establishes he’s a character who *thinks * he can fight Bruce Lee.

There’s a whole crowd when Lee puts Cliff on his ass. It’s an empty set when Cliff throws Bruce into the car. And it’s Cliff’s flashback. I think the implication is he’s an unreliable narrator.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@BorisBartlog @DeepDishEnjoyer We don’t need to infer anything. The father’s around 120; the mother in the low 130s. They’re both on the chart.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@PeterMeijer I mean, “noun-as-adjective” is a fairly common pejorative constitution.

Consider “Jew” vs. “Jew Lawyer,” or “woman” vs. “woman doctor.”

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@TheErrataSheet @JamesSurowiecki “No.”

Cool. Thanks.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@TheErrataSheet @JamesSurowiecki look, man, this sophistry got tedious twelve hours ago.

Have you got an answer or not

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@TheErrataSheet @JamesSurowiecki Again: all you’ve proven is that we sometimes treat certain classes of intentional killings as something other than murder.

That *is* indisputable. But, as James observed a thousand tweets ago, you cannot articulate any reason *why* **this case** should be treated that way.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@TheErrataSheet @JamesSurowiecki What are you talking about???

This whole thing started with the claim that anti-abortion activist can’t articulate a reason why, in their worldview, abortion shouldn’t be treated as murder.

Turns out, you can’t!

https://t.co/iCQHiWBOdV

[James Surowiecki @JamesSurowiecki]

We know most anti-abortion supporters don't believe abortion is murder because most of them do not support punishing women who have abortions as murderers.

No state that bans abortion treats women who have abortions as murderers (or, in fact, as criminals at all). And every time a bill to do so is offered, it dies without ever even coming to a vote. That would not happen if most opponents of abortion genuinely believe it is the moral equivalent of infanticide.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@TheErrataSheet @JamesSurowiecki The one that ends with “If you think life begins at conception, how does an abortion not satisfy the [premeditation] requirement?”

Yes, I know. I just linked to it.

If you don’t have an answer, you can just admit that. It’s okay.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@TheErrataSheet @JamesSurowiecki I don’t think you have answer to that question, because all the answers have very icky second-order effects (see, e.g., this guy, who wants to let Somali immigrants mutilate their daughters’s genitals)

https://t.co/Cda7JnV6KU

[Cary Bleasdale @Cary_Bleasdale]

@NTemple1 @katrosenfield That would absolutely be a reasonable thing to take into consideration, yes.

[chametz enthusiast @NTemple1]

@TheErrataSheet @JamesSurowiecki You seem to think that, if you prove that not all intentional killings of a human being are treated the same, you win.

But no one disputes that. The question is why, if you believe this is such a killing, it *should be* treated differently.