“shall issue” and “may issue”. Do you know the subtle differences?
Shall = compulsory
May = permissive
but....I AM a lawyer. I haven't spent the time to read the opinion, but I have heard that Roe was decided on a shaky legal foundation. I will examine it. I fundamentally believe, however, that people are being schizophrenic on the substance of the issue.
I am OVER generalizing here, but:
The Left = pro-vaxx mandates, pro-choice
The Right = anti-vaxx mandates, pro-life
At the end of the day, in one case they're saying "your body, your choice" and then in the next breath "your body, not your choice." In both cases, the other side could say, "well, it's not just your life, what you do is affecting others' lives, too." At the end of the day, however, the very first life affected is the individual's. Let's just be consistent with our theories.
Nice write up. I have some science background, including biochemistry from 45 years ago, so when I read current papers, it's apparent that the amount of detail knowledge has increased ten fold, perhaps more. So I understand a fair bit, but there's times I scan the detail, and read what seemingly knowledgeable people, like you, Malone, and others are able to translate in to more lay terminology. So then it's a question of whose technical savvy do I trust or respect? As well as what are my persisting biases which lead me to certain voices.
The reality I perceive is mostly people spouting other's opinions and memes, rather than original thought, or critical thinking, which essentially you are suggesting we should all be doing. Otherwise we're just running our pre-existing perspective into a limbic reinforcement loop, leading to rabid fans of whatever lunacy we buy into.
“shall issue” and “may issue”. Do you know the subtle differences?
Shall = compulsory
May = permissive
but....I AM a lawyer. I haven't spent the time to read the opinion, but I have heard that Roe was decided on a shaky legal foundation. I will examine it. I fundamentally believe, however, that people are being schizophrenic on the substance of the issue.
I am OVER generalizing here, but:
The Left = pro-vaxx mandates, pro-choice
The Right = anti-vaxx mandates, pro-life
At the end of the day, in one case they're saying "your body, your choice" and then in the next breath "your body, not your choice." In both cases, the other side could say, "well, it's not just your life, what you do is affecting others' lives, too." At the end of the day, however, the very first life affected is the individual's. Let's just be consistent with our theories.
Nice write up. I have some science background, including biochemistry from 45 years ago, so when I read current papers, it's apparent that the amount of detail knowledge has increased ten fold, perhaps more. So I understand a fair bit, but there's times I scan the detail, and read what seemingly knowledgeable people, like you, Malone, and others are able to translate in to more lay terminology. So then it's a question of whose technical savvy do I trust or respect? As well as what are my persisting biases which lead me to certain voices.
The reality I perceive is mostly people spouting other's opinions and memes, rather than original thought, or critical thinking, which essentially you are suggesting we should all be doing. Otherwise we're just running our pre-existing perspective into a limbic reinforcement loop, leading to rabid fans of whatever lunacy we buy into.
" he always came back with the same argument: I’m not an expert- as if that somehow obfuscates the lack of technical details in his argument"
--Modern Discontent
Great comment, I'm letting everyone know right now, I'm using this and "I am not an expert!"
Nor, did I sleep in a .......... last night, it was a drunken stupor I slept in (whiskey).