HOAs exist solely so that priggish twats who obsess about what the neighbors are doing can actually throw their miniscule weight around rather than, as they should be, being relegated to merely standing in their living rooms, glaring through their windows and bitching ineffectually.

Asking the pot if the kettle is black.

What a weird but entirely unsurprising headline.

Thay just call it “fighting in Lebanon,” as if it’s some sort of unwelcome natural event, like flooding or forest fires

An honest headline should ar least somehow acknowledge that the actual problem is that the fucking Israeli psychopaths refuse to stop destroying infrastructure and murdering civilians in their push to steal land from Lebanon.

None to speak of.

I’m pretty sure I have some from almost random pointd throughout at least a good part of my life squirreled away somewhere, but I couldn’t tell you where.

My favorite ex-girlfriend has a bajillion pictures of me, since she takes photos constantly and always wants people in them, so I was the most common subject for a time. I never even really looked at them then though, and now they’re on the other side of the country (though if they were here, I still probably wouldn’t look at them).

It’s not so much that I dislike them or anything - I’ve just never really seen the point, and never even really think about it.

Just your daily reminder that the President of the United States is not only a deranged lunatic, but an emotionally stunted imbecile as well.

No more huh.

We should take that to mean that everything that’s left is so explicit about Trump raping children that they can’t be redacted enough.

Even without this new and especially egregious tactic, Trump was already far and away the most corrupt president in American history.

I think that by the time this is all over he’s going to at least be in the running for the most corrupt national leader ever in the history of the world.

The Republicans, faced with the likelihood that they won’t win the coming elections, have rather obviously decided to instead steal them.

It’s an amusing irony that such a physically big man is such a little pathetic, craven suck-up.

There’s a shit event horizon.

There’s always a certain amount of shit-quality posting, but when the conmunity is relatively small, the shitty posters are on their own against a group that doesn’t like them, so they can’t make a really strong or long-lasting inpression.

But as the community grows, the number of shitty posters also grows, and it reaches a point at which there are enough of them encouraging each other that the opposition no longer matters. And then fairly quickly, the quality posters will say “Fuck this - this forum sucks,” and go somewhere else.

And the shitty posters are all rhati left.

Primary that traitorous son of a bitch.

Just your daily reminder that the President of the United States is deranged

Just your daily reminder that the President of the United States is an unhinged lunatic.

And worse yet, he’ll quite possibly have the cooperation of the compromised establishment Dems like Schumer and Jeffries, who face almost as great a threat of losing their seats as the Republicans do. And similarly, he’ll likely get behind-the-scenes assistance from the utterly compromised and corrupt DNC, who are self-evidently perfectly content to keep raking in soft money in exchange for only pretending to be the opposition.

Affirmation.

They’re generally desperately insecure and unable to find anything of any value in themselves, so since they can’t build themselves up, they try to tear other people down.

And it doesn’t work very well, so if they come to depend on it, they have to do it virtually nonstop.

Well yeah - if he can’t keep things stampeding along, people might go back to focusing on the fact that he’s a child rapist.

My post was a very condensed version of a very complex and detailed set of views. If you pull a phrase out of context and try to slap a trite and superficial interpretation on it, you’re almost certainly going to get it wrong.

Some more details to aid in parsing the whole thing:

I don’t think rights exist in any objective sense at all. They’re entirely constructs. That means, among other things, that they can and should be shaped in such a way as to best serve their intended purpose.

I didn’t say that privacy is a foundational right - I said that it’s a foundational violated right. As I then went on to try to explain, my view is that the common conception of rights is backwards.

What I mean by that is that, for instance, nobody should have to claim a right to not have their privacy breached, since not having their privacy breached is the default. Their privacy can only be breached if someone else takes it upon themselves to act in a specific way in order to breach their privacy, so (and rather obviously IMO), if we’re to grant credence to the constructs we call “rights’,” then the way it should work is that that somebody else has to prove that they have a right to breach your privacy.

But the way that it actually works is that others breach your privacy as a matter of course and generally without controversy.

My view is that the fact that they can and do do that - that when the matter does come up, it’s just treated as a given that they’re entirely free to do that unless and until you can somehow prove that you have a right to stop them - serves to frame the whole issue in a way that grants people free reign to violate others as they please unless and until those others can successfully claim a right to stop them. In that sense, it’s “foundational.”

Or to put it another way - nobody starts by blithely presuming a right to kill other people. They start by blithely presuming a right to, for instance, violate other people’s privacy, then expand from there.

This doesn’t even semm like a coherent question.

“Naturally forbidden” is, if I’m parsing it correctly, a nonsense phrase.

Fuck no.

Here’s a clue for all of the self-satusfied STEMbros who think they can do anything - you’re about as skilled at making management decisions as managers are at fixing their own computers.

I don’t believe that privacy is necessarily important per se. Rather, I believe that it’s a foundational violated right.

Rights are (not coincidentally IMO) almost always conceived and expressed backwards. That puts the onus on those who would defend a claimed right. I think the onus rather obviously should fall on those who would violate a right - they are the ones who are acting in a specific way, so they are the ones who need to justify their actions.

If an individual lives in complete isolation, they have a complete and total and unchallenged “right” to privacy - it’s literally impossible for anyone else to breach their privacy. It’s only with the addition of other people that the matter becomes relevant, and only with an attempt by another to breach their privacy that it becomes a point of contention.

So again, and really rather obviously, that other has to be able to justify their breach of privacy, since it’s specifically them and their actions that have made the issue relevant.

And at that point, it’s really a very simple question - who has a greater right to control over the details of an individual’s life - that individual or some third party?

So it’s not so much that I believe that people have a right to privacy as that I believe that people cannot possibly have a right to violate someone else’s privacy.