jross

https://www.cracked.com/article_14982_the-9-manliest-names-in-world.html #1 Staff Sgt. Max Fightmaster The Name: Holy ! Just ... holy . Fightmaster is the kind of name we all wish we were born with. And, the irony is that it's the one name that will prevent you from ever having to actually fight anybody. If you ever get into a scuffle at a bar, before the fists start swinging, people would pull the other guy back shouting, "No you fool! He's Max Fightmaster! Think about this for a second!" Max Fightmaster. Holy . The Man: Look, we know you probably don't believe us but we promise you there is a real, actual guy called Max Fightmaster. He was mentioned on CBS News in an article about the Iraq war. We know, it blew our damn minds, as well. You think, sure, he's talking to the news and he just makes up a fake name, like the e-mail Bill O'Reilly read on the air from "Jack Mehoffer." But no, we looked him up and he's a real guy. He also has a MySpace, although it's set to private, denying casual browsers the insight into what Fightmaster gets up to day-to-day. However, we like to think it's probably something completely f*king awesome. Does He Live Up to It? Max Fightmaster is also in the army, or at least he was in 2003. The awesome part? His rank: Staff Sergeant. This means Max's full name and title is STAFF SGT. MAX FIGHTMASTER. That is the manliest name on the planet. Hands down, bar none. Just saying that name will put hair on your chest. Even if you're a woman. Girls, please don't say Max's name out loud. The Only Way It Could Have Been Manlier: Where do you go when your name is already Staff Sgt. Max F*cking Fightmaster? Oh, wait, there you go. Just make "F*cking" an official part of the name. We think it's almost impossible to say the name without it anyway.

Starters by heritage is interesting...

...shadows of the toughest freshmen by name

Prosecutors found unused laws to inflate payments nobody cared about, which could’ve been a minor misdemeanor, into 34 felonies. A flimsy case of political targeting... reeking of desperation. Don't take my word for, take a critic's reasonable view. https://reason.com/2024/05/03/the-new-york-case-against-trump-relies-on-a-twisty-legal-theory-that-reeks-of-desperation/

The 34 felony counts were largely the result of inconsistently selective prosecution and legal overreach. No one was hurt. It wasn't unusual behavior. Voters didn’t care. The democrat judge in a democrat area took his job serious enough to allow the case but obviously determined it was low impact... hence the unconditional discharge. That civil case was baseless. Trump may have committed serious crimes or be a sexual predator, but citing these examples to attack him lacks discernment.

I'm inconsistent based on how personal and rare the scenario is. Utilitarian on the death penalty, even if that meant the death of one of my beloved children. Utilitarian on vaccine creation even with the risk to harm several. Mixing on the organ donor scenario for the possible brain dead patient If I am the doctor, deontology that may later turn to utilitarian. If I am not the doctor and non of my family is involved, utilitarian. If I am the patient, utilitarian. If my beloved is the patient, utilitarian. If I am the 10 to be saved, utilitarian. If my beloved is one of the 10 to be saved, deontology. Deontology if the organ donor scenario is a healthy patient. Oy but what about The Last of Us. Should Joel have saved Ellie? (Tough situation and Joel was wrong!)

It is curious how ethics might shift in different scenarios: A doctor refuses to kill one healthy patient to harvest their organs and save ten others (up-close and personal). The same doctor supports a mandatory vaccination program that saves millions but risks rare fatal side effects for others (abstract impact). Both involve potential loss of innocent lives, but through different choices. My point is to understand people’s death penalty reasoning and show it’s not inherently wrong.

Absolute utilitarianism says you would sacrifice the one for the benefit of the ten. The act-omission distinction is irrelevant, rather the outcome is relevant. it isn't about lawsuit risks, cowardice, etc... Absolute deontology says killing one innocent is always wrong, but letting ten die isn’t your responsibility, due to the act-omission distinction (doing harm is worse than not preventing harm). So maybe ten isn't enough... there is some deontology threshold in which they become utilitarian. Would you kill one innocent to save 10,000? Would you sacrifice 1M to save 6B? What is your breaking point?

Thanks for your thoughts on the death penalty and the risks of convicting the innocent. I’m curious about your direct take on this hypothetical: if killing one innocent person would definitely save *ten innocent lives, is it worth it? Please address this specific scenario. *10 arbitrarily represents evidence that the death penalty deters murders, prevents inmate killings, and stops released offenders from killing again. Please answer the ethical question directly without challenging this assumption, though deterrence can be discussed separately.

They missed a Dake step out… point for Valencia. It was the sequence where Dake wanted his own point for a Valencia step out. This had no impact on the outcome.

Republican Eisenhower drove the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts with Northern bipartisanship. Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) pushed back. Democrats, with small 1957 and large 1960 House/Senate majorities, saw LBJ and Russell (Dixiecrat) gut the acts before they were passed. The Black voters gave ~two-thirds Democratic Congress majority from ’58–’63, and JFK did little to deliver on his promises. After JFK died and civil rights pressure continued to increase, LBJ again worked with Russell. LBJ was racist (words, votes against anti-lynching bills...) and "looks" like he chased power over principle. LBJ did pass the 1964 civil rights act... but not without criticism of its inadequacies for Black human rights. Trump is like LBJ in some ways... a bitter tree may bear sweet fruit.

This is loosely answered in the NWF topic. Are you suspended from NWF or what is preventing the navigation? The absence of a NWF is half the reason the old forum was terminated…

How can we streamline due process for immigration cases? Which laws need reform, and what roles must increased to accelerate the deportation vs stay outcomes?

If you would kindly ask NW questions in the NWF, I will answer the best I can.

The statement that Malcolm X criticizes liberals for being conservative is wrong. In "Message to the Grassroots" (link), X says there are no longer Democrat or Republican parties, only “liberal” and “conservative” camps, both using Black people for power: “Among whites here in America, the political teams are no longer divided into Democrats and Republicans. The whites… are divided into ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ camps.” X adds that “The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful.” Liberals are “foxes,” conservatives “wolves,” each manipulating Black voters, not one acting like the other. Malcom doesn't praise any political parties in that speech... nor in "The Ballot or the Bullet" (link). Tangent: Conservatism doesn’t mean racist ideology. In the 1960s, racists in both parties... Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives (even progressives, moderates, etc.) used conservative ideas like limited government and states’ rights to uphold racism, but racism IS NOT a conservative principle. Tangent2: While more republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than democrats, this was split by region rather than politics. Tangent3: The Ballot or the Bullet" is powerful...