2. return to society with the harm being neutralized - any alterations must 100% be the choice of the individual (e.g. a serial rapist could elect to be castrated, a kleptomaniac or stalker could elect for permanent tracking via microchip, etc)

We kinda do this already with ankle monitors, not that I think subdermal tracking would be any less fallible.

As long as murder is unacceptable in society, it’s the price you pay for the privilege of stripping someone else’s rights from them.

Therein’s the rub, see. That’s the price to be paid for one person. If the murder of one enriches the many, maybe it was worth it. And since not everyone values lives equally, not everyone can have a unanimous take.

IMO, the only valid use of lethal force is if there’s no valid alternative option to protect innocent lives. I would kill if it directly spared innocent lives, but not if there’s any possibility of protecting innocent lives another way.

I laud you for having and knowing your heirarchy of values, I am still (and quite possibly forever will be) determining my own red lines.

I dont blame the corporations. I blame the government.

I understand that corporations do what they do to further their prime directive (profit maximizing, as I figure), but blaming the government for not sufficiently innoculating itself against them is kinda wild to me. Yes, Citizens United is an abomination, but even if it weren’t the current meta, corporations would still do their utmost to influence the levers of power to their own ends.

I skipped incarceration because you’d already expressed it as preferable to capital punishment.

It’s only inhumane if they’re no longer a danger to society.

I cannot agree there. Unless you’re arguing that “everything is legitimate” in the case of dangerous individuals, I imagine you don’t really believe that either.

Rehabilitation is always the goal, but in instances where it is unachievable and the perpetrator is reasonably expected to remain unrepentant, is keeping them alive and imprisoned for life at the expense of law-abiding citizens the way forward? Would they not grow resentful of having to support those who do not follow the social contract?

When you say “least amount of force”, what do you mean?

Intimidation? Lobotomies? Brainwashing?

At what point does keeping someone alive but “neutralized” become inhumane?

We must protect out prescious gays

I mean, yes? But also no?

The US famously lost to poorly equipped guerillas on at leat two occasions (Vietnam and Afghanistan).

Really, I’m more appalled at Yoon on this one. What kind of ignorant chump fails to gain the unquestionable support of the military before going all in on a military coup?

I adore this back-and-forth, but is the metaphor here doing anything any more?

With no limit. I wanna turn this skyscraper into a moon-cannon.

How closely does this match a heatmap for poverty levels?

Do Australian police typically wear full kit and bandanas to photograph drug busts?

I’m partial to a FIM-92 Stinger. Gotta send a message that wasteful private jets are abhorrent, as are their passengers.

Yeah, well, missiles are supposed to crash into things. The right things? Not his job.

As if! That would violate the proscription on exercise!

Garbage argument anyway since they must know that even had Harris won, the next president might abuse it. To leave it an open vulnerability because ‘our guy won’t abuse it’ is asking for trouble.

The ‘don’t go fishing with just one mormon/evangelical/etc.’ argument.

The accountability partner being his son (over whom he has some power) kinda nullifies the concept.

Or a severely unsettling candy-cane stovepipe hat.

Sometimes? Its somewhat analagous to “foreign”. At least in my circles.

Yup, very vague. Probably not UK or France. Mexico maybe?

I understand the move, and from a defense logistics POV it is entirely reasonable to do this, I just wanna know a bit more about what precipitated this reconsideration of the supply chain.