turbotsat comments

mt9334,

In previous times and in theocracies, religion and moral codes are/were a primary source of law. That is now much less true in the First World. We can exclude those other places (theocracies, oligarchies, etc.) from our discussion. Then, to proceed ...

Law is negotiated in legislatures, between legislatures and the executive branch, and through evolution in the courts, between the judicial and other branches.

Moral codes are a much less prevalent input to these processes than in previous times.

You may even prefer this outcome, as I mentioned. If you can force your code on others, others can force their codes on you.

Some of the Mennonites emigrated to Mexico where they obtained guarantees to their freedom to practice various customs. This is an unusual case. As it would be difficult to obtain for most people, the best outcome is not the theoretical best where you get to practice your own code and have others conform to it as well, but a negotiated best outcome where your code does not impinge too much on others', theirs do not impinge too much on yours, and the law as it stands has stopped worrying about social customs as much as it used to.

If you don't mind light public kissing, but don't like heavy public kissing or anything heavier, I'm wondering how you'd fare in the area (areas?) in San Francisco where nudists like to hang out. I think it was reported at one point that SF got them to put towels under their bums, via ordinance, for public hygiene, as they were sitting on public benches. I don't know if SF finally stopped the clothing-optional part or not.

Really? Did you actually watch the video? Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXgjnBpxGI

You are well aware of course that that's exactly how Trump mocked the reporter; not criticised, but imitated and mocked, behind his back

He made the same movements describing Ted Cruz, and a general. He made the same movements in 'CNN - Melania and Don Trump - First Primetime Interview Together Since Their Lavish Jan. 22 Wedding' (included at second link below). That was in 2005!

Evidently the WaPo tried to blow this up to a scandal to distract from the immediate issue of their failed fact checking. After they said they fact-checked Trump on his claim that people were celebrating the 9/11 crashes, Trump described their own (disabled) reporter's article relating the same. WaPo then changed narrative to 'Trump mocks our disabled reporter' to distract from their failed fack-check.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCdV_wCVrc

Media Exposed: Donald Trump Did NOT Make Fun of a Disabled Reporter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aYFC_7ZIn4

Trump did NOT mock a reporter's disability. He makes funny expressions all the time

"British ex-ambassador"

Chop Chop: Russian has used him

A British ex-ambassador has said he was given the DNC Papers from someone who was given them by a DNC insider who had legal access to them. Not from Russian hacking.

mt9334,

Law is what actually is. If someone's view of morality is contrary to the law, it is generally still weaker than the law, absent a theocracy.

The old idea of 'the foundation of society is provided by theocratical mores' no longer applies when the population becomes multicultural. Why expect others to conform to the morality of the religion of a subset?

Would you wish to be constrained by the religion of those folks who don't believe in electricity on Saturdays? Or use of computers, at any time? Don't they have just as much right to impose their morals on you as you have to impose your morals on heavy public kissers?

If you can get your morality into law, that's the point where you can exert it over others. And there's a lesser level, imposing social conformance via approbation. The law lets you get away with that, too.

I guess there is a divide that I'm picturing as, you one the one hand saying something like "I wish law and society had a moral basis", and I'm saying something like "No use wishing, multiple possibilities arise as everyone has slightly different moralities, legal plus social constraints define what IS, look to that."

The more developed countries have explicitly dropped religion as a basis, in most cases. There are a lot of holdovers on individual points, more so in some countries than others. 'In God We Trust' on US coins, the contortions over hijab in France, etc. But they're approaching secularism. That's what is.

Unfortunately for the 'The Intel is Settled' crowd, the NYT is now less than enthusiastic, and the NSA is less than confident.

http://townhall.com/columnists/robertcharles/2017/01/08/russia-did-not-throw-americas-election-n2268354

Russia Did NOT Throw America’s Election - Jan 08, 2017

... But frankly, this “Russia did it” story is wearing thin. So thin, that even the New York Times wrote this weekend: “What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: Hard evidence to back up the [intelligence] agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack,” adding: “That is a significant omission.” ... So, what should Americans note? Hard proof is still missing. The otherwise agitating New York Times admits this public report just combines old news with weak inferences: “The absence of any proof is especially surprising in light of promises … from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James R. Clapper Jr., that he would ‘push the envelope’ to try to make more information public.” Nada. ...

... the National Security Agency (NSA), the obvious “go-to” on any foreign intrusion of an American email server, states it has less confidence in the public report’s conclusions than does CIA. That is curious. It almost seems a negative proof. If NSA cannot be “highly confident,” what right do others have to evince such high confidence? ...

AP: In arguing that the measure did not apply to the West Wing, Kushner’s lawyer cited an opinion from two federal court judges in a 1993 case involving Hillary Clinton’s work on her husband’s health care law.

Wow, mention of Hillary totally missing in the comments.

I think someone did mention that as an 'achievement' when they were scrounging for accomplishments to justify her election run, in another thread.

LFRAgain: You can be sure buyer's remorse is in full effect, but their utter shock and embarrassment won't let them acknowledge much less give voice to it.

You appear to be projecting here.

Can't imagine a universe in which someone might actually choose Trump over the scandal-plagued Hillary and not feel any remorse at all? Has the liberal MSM been that successful in their campaign to mold the public thought?

Oops! Apparently she IS "overrated"!

She has more Academy Award nominations than any other actor.

But she ranks at only 94 in a list of actors by lifetime gross receipts.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/fact-check-meryl-streep-overrated-trump-picks-a-decorated-star/

AP ‘Fact Checks’ Trump Tweet About Meryl Streep Being Overrated - 9 Jan 2017

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/?view=Actor&sort=sumgross&p=.htm

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/01/09/5-meryl-streeps-dumbest-political-comments/

5 of Meryl Streep’s Dumbest Political Comments - 9 Jan 2017

One. Trump supporters attending political rallies are “driven to the worst possibilities by the bloodlust in a crowd.”

Two. Streep puts on a wig, makeup and fat suit to mock Trump during a play

Three. Streep compares Hillary Clinton’s “grit and grace” to that of Continental Army soldier Deborah Sampson, who was wounded fighting while disguised as a man during the Revolutionary War.

Four. The Alar Scare

Five. Streep uses discredited propaganda to claim Walt Disney was a racist, sexist anti-Semite

Hypocrisy Bonus: Streep gives standing ovation to convicted child rapist Roman Polanski at the 2003 Oscars

lucabrasi:

Seventy years old, overweight, red-faced, overwrought and tetchy.

Time-bomb.

She's only 67. It says so in the article!

She is a bit overweight, but shouldn't be too harsh on her, we'll all get there one day, if we're lucky. Weight gets distributed to odd places.

BertieWooster: I think there is only one country left that still uses cups, pounds, ounces etc., anyway.

That Which Can Not Be Named .... and we're not talking Voldemort ...

mt9334,

Which ones? Are you sure they are not answered by my post of "Jan. 10, 2017 - 10:08AM JST"?

If you want to know " how do we decide which is correct", it's been decided by the law. Public kissing is legal. Your available choices are to not participate in public kissing, to complain bitterly when you see it, to take stronger action (subject to the level of legal penalty you feel comfortable in approaching), to attempt to have the laws changed, to emigrate, and probably some other possibilities I haven't thought of.

I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to him, but my guess is he got butthurt when things didn't go his away, especially losing control of Congress, and his avowal of bipartisanship probably went out the window at that point. Because he's been junior in everything he's tried, because he's jumped around a lot. As theFu said, he had very little experience even as a senator. And senators don't manage much beyond their offices, suddenly you want them to manage the entire country?

the intended purpose of that structure might be. may I suggest a course in basic biology?

The use of these parts as mandated by the evolution of our ancestors is to generate and foster DNA. Something more than 99 percent of the time (I estimated, and you didn't disagree) the DNA is not combined with other beings' DNA to create progeny. How then can you demand people to not emit any DNA unless they are going to try to make babies with it every time? And if you can't demand that, how can you demand they only kiss in private, and when they're going to try to make a baby really soon?

... how do we decide which is correct? ... Should consensus be our guide? ...

I don't see Japan or USA restricting public kissing any time soon, after having legalized it.

Scroll forward 10 or 20 years and public sex will probably be legal, as well. Kibitzers on hand to give advice to young couples. Maybe some public areas will be famous for it the way some are given over to chess, go, calligraphy, or tai chi chuan now.

Trump certainly tore a Streep of her.

And then Kellyanne tore off a couple more.

again, I ask what is the grounding for your moral framework by which you claim an "ought"?

I thought we could claim any moral framework we like.

After all, public kissing and same-sex sex are not banned in Japan, so if we disagree, we can't rely on a legal framework.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one person in Japan who thinks public kissing is immoral and at least one other (maybe even the same person) who thinks that same-sex sex is immoral. An atomic framework! No need to rely on Church of Bob or anything.

It's not much use relying on the position of sex organs as being purposed solely for reproduction. I'm pretty sure the great majority of the time, probably well exceeding 99%, they are used for purposes other than reproduction. The number of sex acts per successful pregnancy has to be extremely high, not even counting urination, etc.

Very few vans are equipped to carry 8 people.

More are 8-seaters now. Unless Toyota, etc., are making models for US consumption only, that they don't sell in Japan. Toyota added an 8th seat in certain trim levels several years ago. Don't remember when Honda added a seat. Both are represented in this list: http://www.car.com/buying-guides/best-8-passenger-vans-10022/

Someone above said 'he sped up to pass'.

mt9334: Perhaps, those on here with a high enough security clearance to know exactly what happened will chime in?

Everyone that matches that description, with the sole exception of Hillary Rodham Clinton (unless she perjured herself), has had training telling them to not tell you that stuff. Apparently she got a bye on that: https://www.google.com/#q=hillary+clinton+security+training (lots of headlines including "SHOCK: Hillary never took mandatory security training on classif" and "Army pulls training slide that named Clinton as 'threat' - CNNPoli".

So you may want to ask Hillary: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton

If, "fake news" stories were sufficient to sway voters, are not the voters to blame for being so easily swayed?

Apparently fake news is OK if NYT and WaPo do it. And astroturfing is apparently OK if the DNC's astroturf (organization? PAC?) Correct The Record does it.

It's also apparently OK if the DNC refuses access to their servers to the FBI, forcing the FBI to rely on the DNC's own analysts obtained for that purpose, analysts from a company funded by Eric Schmidt, a Google cofounder (or almost a cofounder), who happened also to be a lead executive (and or co/founder) of an external IT organization (a PAC?) supplying services and advice to help Hillary get elected.

Londoner144: “Do not expect cinema to put up walls and borders.” Hypocrites!!

And ...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/06/tmz-obama-building-wall-around-new-home/

TMZ: Obama Family Building a Wall Around New Home - 6 Jan 2017

President Barack Obama will reportedly have a big, beautiful wall around his new home in Washington DC. ... According to spy photos from TMZ, workers are currently building a brick wall around the rental home where the Obamas plan to live after leaving the White House. ...

Strangerland: But I thought they were using TOR - that's an effort to cover their tracks, and a pretty good effort at that.

A good effort for the average home user, maybe. But for a hacker?

TOR's freely available. I haven't tried it, but for an admin , or for an amateur hacker who spends a lot of time on this stuff, I don't see how it would be difficult, and therefore don't see how it's an indicator of a state-directed effort vs. an amateur effort.

rainyday: I believe the point he was making is that merely saying "Brexit means Brexit" tells us nothing useful about what the government defines Brexit as, and thus which of the many forms of "Brexit" the government will pursue in its negotiations with the EU. The use of the phrase just obfuscates rather than clarifies what Brexit in practice will actually look like, which should be of concern to people on both sides of the issue.

I wouldn't say that's what he meant. Most of the article is complaining about Brexit and hoping it's abandoned, including the last bit tying in with his 'march of folly' theme. 'Chanting her mantra' seems intended to make her a mindless idiot.

Lester: ... Meanwhile, she is determined to march on, chanting her mantra “Brexit means Brexit.” ... Hope dies last. I still hope that at least the British march of folly will be turned back when those who voted to leave the EU realize what is at stake. But neither that, nor an end to America’s march of folly, will happen soon. (end of article)

But what is he expecting? May to expound on the finer points of Brexit policy at length in press conferences, with journalists? How long would the journalists permit that tack to go on?

It seems she's tailoring the message to the audience pretty well with "Brexit means Brexit".

LFRAgain: I don't have to. James Clapper justified their involvment

He backed it off in the next ODNI press release. "USIC", i.e. '17 intelligence agencies', was downgraded to "intelligence community", i.e. 3 agencies plus a little help from another. As I explained.

Who's the dude at upper left corner?

rainyday: I guess it is easier to bash the person than it is to counter their arguments.

I'll bite!

Lester: Meanwhile, she is determined to march on, chanting her mantra “Brexit means Brexit.”

What?!?! Brexit doesn't mean Brexit???

... Fuji TV reported that ...

Burning Bush: So how does one become a "Lord" in the UK system, is it by hard work and daily toil, being voted in by the people, or is it a my granddaddy was a rich guy type system?

It's probably not someone who has to worry in the slightest about the Home Islands' unemployment rate or labor participation rate.

Foston: ... a deeply unpopular new president ....

Foston: ... historically low approval ratings (around 43%, compared to Obama's 68% in 2009)

Say the same pollsters who said Hillary had a 95 percent chance of winning the election. Let's just believe everything they say, as a matter of faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRXaoD9IqWE

(Carrie Heffernan): Everybody loves everybody, nobody ever dies, the world is made of marshmallows, lalala

The Democrats neglected to get a majority of Democrats elected in either house. So I don't know how this 'Benghazi payback' fantasy is going to go.

Surely they were thinking 'look at all them hot oyajis.'