If you are living in California (DOUBT), then you have room to be an idiot with your vote since it's not going to go R unless the world is ending anyway. But if you are a Angeleno (DOUBT - what's your favorite donut shop??) then keep your nonsense contained within that state for the rest of us please and thank you.
lgstarn
joined 1 year ago
That's kind of a cool idea, but depending on where you are this is illegal and/or unethical as lawyers have a fiduciary duty to represent their client's best interest.
https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/fiduciary-duty
A lawyer owes a fiduciary duty to a client. The lawyer must at all times act in the best interest of the client and must make full disclosure of any economic or other interest that the lawyer has that might conflict with the interest of the client. The lawyer is obligated to take all actions and give all advice that will benefit the client and to use professional skill and energy to protect the client’s interests. Should a conflict of interest arise (for example, the lawyer discovers that one client wishes to hire him to sue another one of his clients) the lawyer must immediately make full disclosure of such conflict and take steps to immediately end the conflict regardless of the personal cost to the lawyer.
Self-enforcing (edit: actually self-executing is the proper legal term) here means that the constitutional amendment doesn't require a separate act of Congress. The opinion addresses this and says if the 14th Amendment wasn't self enforcing (edit: executing), some absurd results would ensue. One would be slavery would still be legal.
Okay friend. There are three kinds of logic that end up in the same helpless, stuck place. 1) "God is in control of everything. Each and every thing!" So you can be a murderer, a liar, a thief, etc. All because God is in control of everything! 2) "Everything happens randomly. There is no rhyme or reason to the Universe." So you can be a murderer, a liar, a thief, etc. All because nothing matters! 3) "Everything is predetermined, there is no free will." So you can be a murderer, a liar, a thief, etc. All because of fatalistic determinism!
You should look at if your position is any different from the other two in terms of practical results, because from my perspective, when you get right down to it, each of these seem like really potential serial-killer-levels of moral basis. Free pass! You can rape. You can kill. All because of some sophistic philosophy. If you arrive at that position, you made a wrong turn at Albuquerque, one way or another.
Whether the correlation coefficient can explain statistics of your choices (true), or your language, culture, and upbringing have a big impact (also true), or any other seemingly relevant facts are true, you still ultimately have choices in this life. Or at the very least appear to have them. You aren't a log adrift on an uncaring ocean. Take responsibility for your actions, friend.
I agree with you 100%. The difference could be in the "uncanny valley" of proc gen... Minecraft is blocky, so you suspend judgement and just find the attention to detail a wonder, while perhaps realistic-looking proc gen games are not quite realistic enough.
Come on now. On a very practical level, you can choose to reply to this message, or not, and that has nothing to do with "a whole range of cause and effect cascades that brought the particular action." Saying you can't make that choice is pure sophism that is tantamount to an excuse. So what's your choice going to be?
If you start an instance with an unhinged tankie, it's not possible to be moderate and reasonable. Life isn't some 70s sitcom, "Oops, That Darn Tankie!"
It says, "granny, we're gonna eat glutinous rice wine dumplings yay!" you can see the picture of the dish on the bottle. Presumably the alcohol cooks off. And here's a recipe for them in English: https://www.sbs.com.au/food/recipe/fermented-glutinous-rice-dumpling/ugypizgsj
Man, I did not realize how much I missed this kind of dumb high school drama type of social media post until I saw this one.
Oh no Brian, please don't go... the Fediverse needs you! 😂
Thanks for the soap opera fix!
The FDA banned the use of Red Dye #3 in cosmetics over 30 years ago because it causes cancer in animal models. But it was never banned in food. That is either beholden to big business, downright stupid, or both. More info here: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-additives/red-dye-3-banned-in-cosmetics-but-still-allowed-in-food-a3467381365/
view more: next ›
Simone's is good enough for me that I'll just ask you to keep your counterproductive-to-reality narrative to California. Long Beach is a long, long way from the rest of the country. If you manage to convince 10 or 100 people in California to have a protest vote it will probably be fine, but if we end up with Trump because you convinced even one person in a purple state to stay home, I will come to Simone's and bitch you out endlessly.