chasing the dragon

Huh. I guess it might be.

Far from my first game, but my first perfect game. Yea, I guess that does track.

Not a sequel. Just because it’s not Portal 1. The fact that it’s second is not the problem. The problem is that the first one was flawless.

Portal 1 was flawless. Portal 2 had a crucial flaw.

Specifically, it was not Portal 1. Everything else was perfect.

Tenth Amendment, might apply here.

when it quits bring entertaining.

It’s utility for the original purpose, communication without limits, (or checking for coffee) is being diminished, and at some point, ill stop using it for that. But as long as there are jokes and titties, it will still be a source of entertainment.

Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.

And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.

your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say

So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?

The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.

But I’m with you. No kings.

As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.

They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.

We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.

I wouldn’t choose such a system, I think, but I can’t say that there aren’t at least a few half decent arguments for it.

A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn’t automatically mean “powerless figurehead.”

Given the way the US has been recently, I’m willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.

Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word “training” to make it fit that sentence above.

I seem to recall reading that a German scientist did the experiment that lead directly to the atom bomb before we did our in the US, but that he misinterpreted the results, and tossed the whole line of research.

You could always just say “whoops, I read the question wrong,” particularly since the rest of your answer was right.

If you’re a practicing attorney, can you explain to me what roll the judge and jury have in charging someone with a crime? I had always thought that was done long before they game into the picture.

Arguably, you don’t tell them, and they don’t try to steal the idea, or try to sabotage it, or decide to build was plans that don’t depends on a successful nuclear strike.

If I was her, I’d publish the threat and result in the place I hosted the mod, then nuke my own mod.

But I’m a spiteful little shit.

Huh. Never realized chromebooks were priced that low.

Thanks for the correction.

when you’re exiled alone on an island…

50,000 corpses at Waterloo would debate this one with you.

Desks are cheaper, and the hole only slightly impairs functionality.

Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.

I’m aware it’s not immediate self defence, that’s kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?

You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.

And you hope they don’t come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.

Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them.

And what if they won’t let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can’t just ignore them.

Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!

Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.

There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence

But you know he’s gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.

nothing will ever make it right.

Strongly disagree. If someone had killed Musk a year ago, the world would be a different place today. A better place, I think.

If someone had killed Trump ten years ago, how many COVID deaths would be avoided? How much damage to our economy would not have happened? How many hungry people across the world would still have food from a USAID shipment?

There are plenty of times it would be right to kill people. But who can we trust to make that decision? I’m confident I’m right, but I would not want to have to do it.