That's a good reason to boycott wool. If it's all profit driven they will find other ways to make their product.

For example we've got yeast now which grows dairy milk identical to cows milk, thanks to an increasing market of people who refuse to buy milk from dairy farms.

I'm certain if enough people put pressure on the wool industry then someone innovative will take advantage and make some kind of device that grows wool without the sheep.

So we can have our cakes and eat them too in the long run, just by slightly altering our purchasing habits in the short term.

Also, in regards to age... I'd say ayahuasca is definitely for older people, when I was in ceremony almost everyone was 30+. And it makes sense, it is definitely not just love and good vibes with some slight alterations to your normal perceptions

To add to that - Santo Diame considers taking ayahuasca "THE Work". They take it at church every weekend, including their kids (lol), they are very serious about it as an integral spiritual/religious tool.

Ok, help me:

---Was she drunk or altered---or is that a regional accent? This is a serious question---(about the Louisiana/Baton Rouge accent)

“What would you do if you found out that everything you know, everything you believe, everything you’ve been told since you were a child was a lie?"

"And not just any lie, but one carefully crafted, finely tuned, expertly executed, and deliberately designed with the express purpose of assuring you that wrong was right, that bad was good, and that violence was love."

"A lie powerful enough to manipulate you into taking part in horrific and barbaric acts that you’d otherwise find appalling. Powerful enough to wash blood from your hands; to alter your perception so severely that murder appears mundane and compassion becomes extreme.”-Emily Moran Barwick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLmIqdlomtuStFtMawXWLcH9Ia2TFFkDZ3&v=kUTgZ7s_hiw

I look forward to the day when we get past our "social outrage" at mind altering drugs and admit that they are pleasant experiences.

The only textual interpretation they should do is to understand the meanings behind the words.
(Like the subject at hand : what was the functional definition of the words "well regulated" in 1791.)

The act of deciding "well, they wrote X, but we think they would have written Y had they thought of these new circumstances, so we're going with what we think" is taking things too far. (eg. concepts like : surreptitious telephone wiretap law applying to overt public video/audio recording)

The legislature exists for a reason. Writing/Updating laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and legislate new laws that alter the scope/definition of old ones.


The problem with case law is that there is no Federal/State/Country/City LIS system where you can just search for whatever laws apply to whatever activities. You would need access to legal databases, like say LexisNexis. Even lawyers don't read case results directly to know what the decisions mean, they use summarizing services that outline the fallout of court decisions in terms of enforcible concepts. Ironically, these summaries are copyrighted, and the public at large is not allowed to know what those enforcible concepts are without paying.

IMO, I think eminent is easiest confused with emanating. Because the concepts behind them are so similar. One sticks-out-of, the other oozes-out-of. If you said that 'an eminent thing emanates from something', you would be so so close to literally correct.

-scheherazade

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.




You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.



The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.


Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.




Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.

-scheherazade

@gorillaman

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

I still just don't think at a fraction of 11% it's worth worrying about. Certainly not enough to actually alter social law. You look at France (also at 11% immigrant) and if anything there's been overreaction with the bans on face covering.

I'm sure the UK could do more to encourage assimilation. A basic part of that would simply be making a better effort of pushing migrants into training / jobs if they're not immediately able to, which forces you to adapt to the country's culture and mores. Settling migrants in poor areas with often high existing unemployment rates is a terrible way to integrate migrants and also naturally stirs up hate among the local population.

Groups of migrants will tend to congregate when they arrive but even if some of these initially end up on welfare, there's always a strong financial incentive to become employed which will force them to integrate. Meanwhile, we know that even if the migrants are religious, their children and further descendants are much less likely to be.

Thanks!

And i completely agree. I've heard people who i would otherwise consider intelligent get completely caught up with Trump.

One telling me they admire how he speaks his mind.

This is incredible to me. When not spewing vitriol and racist bile, he is altering his position, often radically entirely dependent on who he is speaking to.

The guy would come out as anti-puppy if he thought it would get people to like him.

White cis male weighing in, so I know the only acceptable position I can take is to defer the decision to others, but I'll chance it.

It seems pretty obvious to me the people taking the most abuse in and having the most anxiety on the subject are going to be anyone transgendered.

I am however a bit reluctant to rule out the concern that might be held by the female half of the population of using public bathrooms alongside males. I know, most of the proposals are all based on simply allowing transgender people who identify as female to use female restrooms. I don't however think it's fair to straight out reject concerns from females that male predators, or more probably 'mere' perverts, can pretty easily 'fake it' and walk right in.

The argument of just get over yourself or you phobias also cuts both ways. Anyone insisting this is a world altering vital battleground over freedom and privacy is maybe taking things too far.

I'll disagree that's it's perfectly fine food. Bacon is a type 1 carcinogen. Which means there is no doubt that it causes cancer. Non processed pork, is a type 2 carcinogen, which means it causes cancer, but they need more data to confirm it.
The risks aren't quite as high as with cigarettes but it's an extra set of dice I'm not going to roll. That's information from the W.H.O.

I'm not sure if this method would work in Hawaii, but they've had a lot of success in Europe with stray animals by using a catch a release program http://carocat.eu/the-catch-neuter-and-release-approach/. It's a little slower, but not that much since cats and dogs have a pretty short life-cycle when they are stray. I think you could make a few alterations and, the invasive boars instead of running away from hunters, would begin to approach them instead, and you could register, and neuter them.

Damn you blew my cover. I'm am indeed a pig, hence my bias in this thread. Here's a picture of me and my boat driver in the bahamas http://www.tecnologia-ambiente.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/maiale-isola.jpeg

I think Maher's cheer leading goes a bit overboard. Yes, criminalizing it or even banning it is ridiculous. But fact is, for some people it becomes a bad habit. Any mind altering drug, think alcohol, can be abused to escapism and avoiding problems. We don't know the long term effects of it either so you kind of have to accept you're a test dummy if you use it.

Don't forget all that genetically-altered fructose (or nonmetabolizable substitute) is there to mask the heaping quantity of salt. Why the salt? To make you thirsty for more liquid candy of course!

I'd say it goes from 4 to 6 comfortably. It may be possible to alter the design. If you did, I think it would probably scale at the same rate... 5-7.5, 6-9, 7-10.5. Doubling would provide useful, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

Still pretty awesome table. Another cool part of the design is the ease which it transfers to the bigger mode. No more storing leaves in the basement or having to have two people to pull it open.