Search results

In a war, yes. In politics, no. Because of a two party system, an enemy's enemy can actually become an ally, at least for a time.

He's trying to go to the grammy's now...

No, it's real. He's actually the current number 1 rapper right now. Actually, he's #1 overall on some streaming platforms: https://kworb.net/charts/itunes/us.html It's not stupid hard to do, usually if you are famous enough releasing a single will get you there for a few hours.

Goes to the WEF just to laugh at all of them to their faces.

It's a pretty standard turn of phrase: https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/what-are-some-examples-of-victimless-crimes.html It's in fact a classic example of the turn of phrase. See, this is why I want to focus on crimes with a victim. If you prosecute this guy for doing porn in...

If they're forced, then it stops being a victimless crime even by my definition. Did you see the part about consenting? Also, a large number do consent. In fact, tha majority do consent. In fact, one of the ways sex trafficking thrives is the knowledge that victims can't go to the cops because...

Yes. In fact, they did. That's how Dr Kavorkian's euthanasia was called by some. Then others pointed to his victims. Then he got busted when he did a crime with a victim, as the victim couldn't consent. Again, it's a phrase used to signal that all parties consented.

Yes, that would be a victimless crime, assuming you were of more or less sound mind, not drunk, etc. And yes, there'd be a victim. Again, it's a term of art. It's to save the constant rewriting of "crimes that all parties consented to" and "crimes that not all parties consented to".

Again, a "victimless crime" is a term of art that means consenting adults. Yes, there can be a victim to a victimless crime, welcome to English, it makes little sense. No, it isn't. Because that's not how the term anti-Semitism is used. Parts of language are not lego bricks that can be moved...

Yes. The 'victims' consented. This is what a victimless crime is. "Victimless crime" is an idiom that, by definition, means one where either no one was harmed, or it was between all consenting adults. Sure, maybe the consenting parties are harmed, and that person could even arguably be called...

Technically yes, but when someone's talking about legislating morality, what they usually mean is stuff like outlawing porn, other religions, blasphemy, booze, drugs, homosexuality, etc. In otherwords, victimless crimes. There's a difference between morality and rights. Basically leaving...

No, because government expanded. In fact, much of the reason it expanded was to stop degeneracy. Look at the ban on alcohol as a prominent example of this. And the war on drugs. Yet the government has consistently shown that it isn't capable of actually stopping degeneracy. Instead, it will...

Nope. We got here because the government pushed that. There's a difference between tolerance and actively aiding. Nope. Again, you are wrong. It's design was purposely set up to allow a lot of different people to behave differently, and limited the government a bunch to allow this. The US was...

Again, Madison Cawthorn did nothing wrong. Sure, he liked to crossdress, but he did that in private, he pushed that on no one.

How is this the Best PR DeSantis has gotten since he started running? How is his PR team so bad that the only success they have is a Trump aligned person fucking up?

Click the read more thing, or expand the quote:

https://www.newsweek.com/libertarians-want-control-joe-biden-mitch-mcconnell-1826456