Supreme Kangaroo Court

Think back to 2015. Gambling was legal in a few select areas, like Las Vegas. It was fine. We weren’t INUNDATED with gambling apps and gambling sports ads targeting everyone 24/7, including children.

This is a brand new problem created by an idiocracy of bad laws, corrupt rulings, and worse regulations. And what’s terrifying is how fast this problem spiraled out of control: half a decade. That’s how fast it festered.

Your black market argument doesn’t apply for several reasons. Most notably we know what it was like 8 years ago and can directly compare the consequences of changing the law. Those consequences are absurdly bad.

The Supreme Kangaroo Court of the US legalized gambling a few years ago, since it was a way for the rich to extract more wealth from the working class.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Well, I think Steam deserves a 30% cut of game revenue for doing basically nothing.

EDIT: Why the downvotes? I love Steam! I am one of you! :( I failed the shibboleth.

Laws limiting the height of your fence are debated in the following way.

1. First, the benefits and harms to you and your neighbors are considered.
2. These considerations are weighed against the relative costs to the rest of the community.
3. Rules are agreed upon that take everyone’s interests into account.

This is a moral exercise, because to debate something is to engage in normative deliberation. Indeed, your only mechanism for social appeal is moral: “This is the right thing to do” for some reason, such as justice, fairness, harm reduction, or whatever.

If you pass a law protecting rare valuable books, then you also need to decide which books are protected.

You’re right. Laws are constrained by pragmatism. It turns out, figuring out which books are important is analogous to figuring out which natural habitats should be legally protected from construction, etc. This is fairly easy.

What?? Every law we have is a matter of moral debate. Why do you think murder is illegal, or rape? Because these are evil behaviors.

Did I make any policy suggestions? These are simply moral facts. Laws are a matter of convenience, and if it’s inconvenient for us to legally constrain some evil behaviors, oh well.

• Buying food in order to destroy it is bad.

• Buying art in order to destroy it, also bad.

Ownership itself is a pragmatic social construct: you “own” things insofar as that “makes sense.”

Does it make sense for Amazon to own rare books? Not really. I’m not sure why that would be allowed. It’s like a child owning a rocket. It simply makes no sense in most contexts.

Yeah, a Republican Christian is like a meat-eating vegan. Oxymoronic.

It’s important to remember that the judge and the DA are zombies, not people, and we are in a zombie apocalypse.

I posted a small comment on Reddit for the first time in, oh, idk, years. It was in a thread about the book Dungeon Crawler Carl. My comment said, paraphrasing,

DCC is not a nihilistic book

Short and to the point. I received three replies, all of them antagonistic. The first one said,

You’re wrong, because DCC is not a nihilistic book.

Except weird and long-winded. The second one said,

your definition of nihilism is wrong. DCC is not a nihilistic book.

The third one was,

You’re being pedantic.

Aaaand last time I post a comment on reddit.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator