BulletproofBrony, Ace Law Student
Location: Durr Ham
Joined Nov 13, 2011 at 12:58PM EST
I’m 22 years old and a graduate of the University of Georgia in history and political science. I recently finished my senior thesis with a research grant from the Center of Undergraduate Research Opportunities on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Counter-Enlightenment thought. I won the 2013 Pi Sigma Alpha essay contest in UGA’s School of Public and International Affairs on the question of whether American culture tends to emphasize being an individual over being a citizen. The essay can be read here.
I am attending the Duke University School of Law. I will graduate with a Juris Doctor in 2017.
I am a prolific writer. My friend and I frequently write essays in politics, philosophy, history, and world events.
Religiously, I am a Christian as a member of the Church of Christ at Oglethorpe. I do not believe that miracles occur in the modern day, that God “speaks” to individuals in the modern day except through the Bible, or that religious belief is a justification for political policy. In fact, I believe the two should be strictly separated.
That brings us to the next section: politics. I am a capitalist. That means I believe that the only reason any government should exist is the protection of the individual rights of its citizens. In essence, I believe that each man (or woman) is the owner of himself (or herself), and that to infringe on that ownership (i.e. to violate another’s rights) is the only thing the government has the authority to regulate. Anything more than that becomes a violation of man’s self-ownership in and of itself.Fluttershy is my favorite pony.
I find Catelyn Stark from Game of Thrones inexplicably attractive:
I’m also a fan of the Duchess of Cambridge.
My favorite movie score is from How to Train Your Dragon:
Political drama is, unsurprisingly, one of my favorite movie genres. Some of my favorite movies include Lincoln, Charlie Wilson’s War, Amazing Grace (2006), and The King’s Speech.
I think everyone should see the final Twilight movie (I went with my girlfriend -- she watches it for the lulz too) just to hear Kristen Stewart’s vampire sex talk. It’s side-splittingly hilarious.
I think Wreck-It Ralph deserved the Oscar for best animated film over Brave -- by a lot.
Even so, I love that Brave introduced me to Julie Fowlis. I want to use this song as a lullaby for future children -- it’s fantastic:
I’ll add more as I think of it, but you can also ask random questions and I may pick a few to field.
A brief explanation of grand juries:
1. The only people that are present are the jurors, the prosecutor, and the witnesses they decide to call.
2. Grand juries are secret proceedings.
3. The suspect has no representation or counsel whatsoever.
4. There’s a low standard of proof (probable cause).
5. You don’t need a unanimous vote, but only a 2/3 or 3/4 vote (3/4 in MO of a 12-person grand jury).
6. The grand jury has immense power to bring in whatever witnesses or evidence they want.
It’s essentially a prosecutor’s wet dream. A federal prosecutor once commented that he could indict a ham sandwich. Prosecutors simply just don’t lose at this stage.
And if they do lose, then that means there’s really no case. Pres. Obama, an attorney and law professor, no doubt took that into account when saying that the grand jury’s ruling should be respected. And I agree.
Last post was in March, and Speccy basically said he was done with it.
Back in my day, my generation got burgers on Monday, chicken rings on Tuesday, steak nuggets on Wednesday, chicken patties on Thursday, and pizza on Friday!
We got fat.
A more constructive alternative: “For every meter the neo-Nazis walked, local businesses and residents [of Wunsiedel, Germany] would donate $12.50 to a nongovernmental organization devoted to making it easier for neo-Nazis to leave behind their hateful politics.”
via Washington Post
There’s not a nipple where one should be. Is it.. is it that far off to the side?
Compare a neutral reading of the facts (“…asked her to join him for coffee in his hotel room while they shared an elevator ride together at the World Atheist Convention in June 2011.”) to your rendering of the facts (“Asking a someone you’ve not spoken to before for coffee after following them alone into an enclosed space with no escape routes in the middle of the night isn’t normal behaviour, one would hope.”).
People meet people at conventions, including in elevators, by asking, “Hi, my name is,” or, “Hi, would you like to share a cup of coffee?” When you’re at a convention in a different town, your hotel room is a perfectly acceptable place to share that coffee (I’ve been at Model UN competitions and that was frequently standard for both sexes).
The malicious element of misogyny isn’t there. The YouTube comments are misogynist, but let’s isolate these issues and not treat them as identical.
The first is asking someone for coffee, even in an elevator at a convention and when the coffee is in a hotel room. To say that’s misogyny is really to stretch the outer limits of the word.
The second is the response. The YouTube commentors are definitely misogynistic. The question, is the mere act of disagreement -- even sarcastic disagreement in the case of Dawkins -- also misogyny. That’s a very hard case to make. There’s a distinction between the 4channer on YouTube and a man like Dawkins saying, in effect, “Get a grip on what’s really important, because this isn’t.”
>Publicly make generally unpopular comment while publicly shaming someone else for generally normal behavior. (One would think that a convention of like-minded people would be the prime place to ask people for coffee.)
>Receive predictable backlash.
She may have been harassed, but that’s not in the evidence, as negative criticism alone isn’t harassment. I was quite unpopular as a columnist at my undergraduate university, and had a devoted following of Internet commentators who made it a mission to remind me (including my university president). But that’s not harassment.
Emma Watson, of whom I hold in high regard, said we should be for equality, and I agree. However, she said she did not understand why feminism had become a “dirty word.” It’s because much of contemporary feminism is about this sort of pettiness rather than equality -- a sort of “equality above equality.” I am an equity feminist, if I must adopt the title (I simply prefer “individualist”). I am not a gender feminist.
Well yeah, don’t touch them!
But they’re more like court jesters. They’re fun to laugh at from afar, on occasion.
/b/ is a foul place.
Meanwhile, is anyone else following the Facebook saga of Suddenly Jesus and Lisa Lombardo? Because I’m shipping it.
They’re not selling the clothes. They’re selling the look. Much like beer commercials don’t sell beer. They sell a lifestyle. Dos Equis man’s not like, “Dos Equis tastes fantastic.” He’s selling class, high society, adventure, sophistication, etc. -- all things wholly unrelated to the beer itself, which is just a standard mass produced beer. Or Charmin isn’t like, “This’ll clean your ass well.” They’re like, “This’ll make your ass feel like it’s getting kissed by angels.”
Advertising is meant to sell things. It’s not exactly a treatise on anything but human psychology -- “see something desirable, associate product for sale with something desirable, make product for sale equally desirable.”
If people have their self-esteem injured by an ad campaign, they need to reevaluate the source of their self-esteem -- whether they value themselves, or whether they live up to societal standards is the difference between self-esteem and a spiritual sell-out.
Self-esteem (n.): confidence in one’s own worth or abilities; self-respect
If what other people say, do, or think affects your “self-esteem,” it’s not really self-esteem. What you think of you should have no relation to what others think of you.
“My colon exploded of how ridiculous it was!”
I date a girl who is a bigger gamer than I am, and I watch My Little Pony. What are gender stereotypes, again?
Lost it at the last panel. My sides.
Tacos and Halloween all in one: