Nostr notes by Sofia (migrated)

this will never stop being hilarious to me lol ...

2025-03-02T02:02:21Z

this will never stop being hilarious to me lol

tfw i personally know one of the best lawyers in my city but ...

2025-03-01T21:27:32Z

In reply to nevent1q…d6w5
_________________________

tfw i personally know one of the best lawyers in my city but we're brazilian so it wouldn't help most people here lmao

also, i just double checked and even in brazil (where spag lives) ...

2025-03-01T21:27:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…7yj7
_________________________

also, i just double checked and even in brazil (where spag lives) it's only illegal to not report a crime if you either:
1. have a separate legal obligation to protect someone (e.g., parents, doctors, etc)
2. accepted the responsibility to do so (e.g., personal agreements, contracts, etc)
3. increased the risk of the crime happening through your own past behavior

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/1980-1988/L7209.htm#art13

the way extradition in the US is supposed to work*, as you said ...

2025-03-01T21:22:54Z

In reply to nevent1q…yucl
_________________________

the way extradition in the US is supposed to work*, as you said yourself it's quite common for other countries to do it outside of that to avoid hurting their international standing

actually it depends, if it were the other way around (i.e., ...

2025-03-01T21:15:22Z

In reply to nevent1q…5dye
_________________________

actually it depends, if it were the other way around (i.e., illegal in the US but someone isn't american) it could easily happen, since the US has been known to play the world police if anyone even remotely involved in the situation (not necessarily the person committing the crime) is american

Nostr event nevent1qqs29dw5qvsz47y390etju8h7ymrs2mqrmhtze9ythgwa6xtduz0nnqzyrm22uylp9qchpjn3rq2whu24aca7gktlnypk6nrlxlp6qk5832658tkqmy

2025-03-01T20:23:28Z

Nostr event nevent1qqsyh4x72ds86ruxuaqn0qc06azchjm70wnmtczmp0l55dvxsdrgszczyrm22uylp9qchpjn3rq2whu24aca7gktlnypk6nrlxlp6qk583265822l7e

2025-03-01T16:27:37Z

i wonder if we'll get to a point where desktops can use an ...

2025-02-26T20:17:04Z

i wonder if we'll get to a point where desktops can use an entire 20A@120V american circuit lol, with high end parts you can already get a third of the way there, based people (220V users) will (hopefully) never be affected though :3

Nostr event nevent1qqsxh2m3qhq0u4m69sqq9jadvexwjlf8qm9wj2kl9ard5prlgawms6gzyrm22uylp9qchpjn3rq2whu24aca7gktlnypk6nrlxlp6qk5832653z4snc

2025-02-25T18:58:52Z

:3c

Nostr event nevent1qqsrw693rx0lk88u35fddz95k40mg0ezec0q8cufazhf70as5puuqdszyrm22uylp9qchpjn3rq2whu24aca7gktlnypk6nrlxlp6qk5832659t9xff

2025-02-25T16:20:29Z

consent is one of the biggest pillars of morality, if not the ...

2025-02-25T02:10:42Z

consent is one of the biggest pillars of morality, if not the biggest

i study language quite a lot! which is why i understand that ...

2025-02-22T23:11:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…m7x8
_________________________

i study language quite a lot! which is why i understand that assuming things about what people say can be extremely problematic in most cases

there are very specific cases in which making assumptions is the best thing to do, as covered by the cooperative principle (specifically, Grice's maxims)

>Under that assumption, nothing is illegal, because all crime ...

2025-02-22T23:04:17Z

In reply to nevent1q…3vr5
_________________________

>Under that assumption, nothing is illegal, because all crime has context which can make it legal. It's why we judge even cases of murder where everyone knows who did it

not at all, someone can be charged with "uttering obscene language by means of radio communication" (18 U.S. Code § 1464), that is a crime, which means it is, objectively, illegal, there are no circumstances in which it wouldn't be

uttering obscene language isn't a crime, it isn't illegal, but uttering obscene language by means of radio communication is, they are two separate things

>As for how it works in english, I have no idea because I don't live in the anglosphere, which means little of it applies to me. That which does I believe I know well enough. This does come with the problem that the anglosphere is based on the english legal philosophy, which is itself based on the german philosophy, and brazilian one is based on french, which is based on roman

this discussion is about american laws, i understand that they don't apply to us, but they are still the subject of the conversation, so if you "have no idea" it doesn't make sense for you to talk about them

>Still, nothing ever is completely illegal no matter the country. Rape is not always illegal, murder, consuming and producing child pornography, etc. Nothing is ever 100% illegal, nothing is ever 100% legal which means, by your definition, that nothing should be called illegal, which is a silly affirmation to make tbf

the problem is you're trying to combine everything into a single word, refer to my reply to the first quote for an example of something that is indeed 100% illegal

if a crime had to be a single word, then yeah probably nothing would be 100% illegal, but that isn't how legal terms work, virtually nothing is a single word

>You were right about the murder but you get the point, let's not again get stuck in semantics. Though if you wanna be technical, a murder is definitionally a group of crows, which isn't illegal, usually :p

unlawfully killing someone (with variations about whether it specifically requires intent to be separate from manslaughter depending on the jurisdiction) and a group of crows are both definitions of murder, depending on the context

and again, we're discussing law, semantics are the entire point
>Roubos e furtos não são sempre ilegais. Nesse caso eu estava discutindo latrocínio pois não conheço essa parte da legislação estadounidense. Latrocínio no meu exemplo foi o crime brasileiro, crime esse usado apenas para exemplificar uma linha lógica.

i don't know much about brazilian law, so there is nothing for me to say about that

>Assumptions can be unreliable and I know that and just didn't care, because if someone found what I said to be too unclear they could ask. Jessica understood, which was the point. Under casual conversation, which is not what we're partaking in, I don't care about making myself 100% clear and specific because it's casual. I don't write everything the way you'd prefer because it's energy I usually can't spare as I am quite busy, having to take care of several children, several adults, several pets, two houses, have college and party activities. Why would I spend most of my mental energy in a casual conversation in a niche corner of the internet where I'm not even that important anymore/yet. Since only you misunderstood my post, I have trouble believing my post was understood out of luck.

the problem is that what you said wasn't unclear, someone would have had to explicitly assume you meant something *other than what you said* to understand what you meant

>Online distribution is illegal and covered by the obscenity law [annex 1 and 2 ], which is taking from US the department of jutice in an article about obscenity laws

this is actually misleading, though it's understandable since the law *is* worded in a very annoying way, it isn't illegal under that law as long as it isn't done commercially
specifically, title 18 section 1465 says "or an interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) [1] of the Communications Act of 1934) in or affecting such commerce", where "such commerce" refers to "interstate or foreign commerce" mentioned earlier in the section

and unlike what antis seem to think, cp distribution is very rarely done commercially lol, it's basically always people just sending things they like to each other, which is only illegal under cp laws, not obscenity related ones

when bills want to be broader than commerce, they specifically say "interstate or foreign commerce *or communication*", like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act did for other crimes (i specifically mentioned the CFAA since it's another one i'm very familiar with but it's not exclusive to it)

for example, the CFAA includes "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce *or communication*, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States" as something that can be a "protected computer"

back to the original law, i remember there being other things about the communications act that made that section pretty much meaningless even when applied commercially but i don't remember what they are lol, so for now i'll just go with this since it's clearer, at most it only applies to commerce

>I believe for the next point we operate under different definitions of rare. I see it as a frequency thing, while you see it as a percentage thing. All the same, doesn't mean ours can't be overturned or that it's all that improbable
1-3 times a year is quite frequent and often ideologically motivated, and we should, given how ideology affects us, not think we are just as likely to not be overturned as everyone else

frequency by itself is meaningless without comparing it to something else, so yes, percentages are what have to be considered

and percentages that low are, in fact, improbable

to help with perspective, a p value of 0.05 is usually considered to mean scientific findings are statistically significant (though in some cases the requirement can go lower), that means there's a 5% chance the results are completely caused by random noise

that is to say, a 5% chance that a finding is completely meaningless is already considered improbable enough to not be a cause for much concern with most scientific research, and we're talking about a small fraction of that percentage (0.8% would even fall under the p < 0.01 criterion, which is sometimes required depending on the subject), it's about as improbable as things get lol

you never said there were multiple representatives if the ...

2025-02-22T21:48:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…v2pt
_________________________

you never said there were multiple representatives

if the question were modified to be as such (specifically, with at least one in each group going in each road), then someone in the dumb group would always get there faster

the dumb person could have went full speed on the road that goes ...

2025-02-22T21:28:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…27rl
_________________________

the dumb person could have went full speed on the road that goes the exact opposite way on their first try, while the smart person could have went at 66% of the dumb person's speed on the road that goes straight to their destination

in that scenario, the dumb person would arrive first if they realized they were wrong before 1/3 of the way through the opposite road, otherwise the smart person would arrive first

i don't think that's the most likely scenario, and even that scenario isn't certain since it depends on the speed of realization variable, but it showcases that the problem as you described it does not have a single answer

the lack of any numerical variables in your description is what makes it impossible to give a single answer for

the outcome, and by extension the best choice, depends on more ...

2025-02-22T21:19:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…8plc
_________________________

the outcome, and by extension the best choice, depends on more specific information like how much each road deviates from the destination, your description alone isn't enough to say

tbh nowadays i tend to just ignore nazis lol, not because i ...

2025-02-22T21:17:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…rssf
_________________________

tbh nowadays i tend to just ignore nazis lol, not because i don't think it's important to convince them (it obviously is, just look at germany's recent elections) but because it's very rarely *possible* to do it, it's unfortunate but it's rarely something we can do

we need more mass outreach tbh, not just one on one discussions

>It isn't, because a crime can be a mathematical function ...

2025-02-22T21:13:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…r6zr
_________________________

>It isn't, because a crime can be a mathematical function of sorts
y=a + b
Y is a crime and a and b neither are a crime by themselves, but can you say something isn't completely a crime if under certain circumstances it is?

if doing something only constitutes a crime in specific circumstances, that thing is not a crime, only the combination of those things is a crime
y being a crime does not mean it's correct to say a is a crime or b is a crime, so it is not correct to say someone can be charged with a or with b (only with a and b, that is to say, y)

>It's not a black and white case, it's a spectrum. You can say on one end we have being obscene in private (100% legal) and on the other we have distributing obscene material for profit (100% illegal) and a lot of murkiness in between. The core of both actions, including of the crime, is the obscenity. Obscenity, given the laws around it, is x% illegal, though that percent is itself murky, because of the laws that are based on the legal concept of obscenity

that's just not how something being illegal works, you could say that the set of all things related to obscenity contains x% illegal members, but you can't say obscenity is x% illegal, because legality doesn't have degrees (*sentences* have degrees though)

>A can be a set of sets if you create a set within it, in this case B

indeed it can, it's just not what you said

> A in the example was all crime and B was stealing. I do note I used it incorrectly but not in the way you mentioned. I'd like to present my argument in [image 1]

you said "A somado com um conjunto B é igual ao conjunto A, B∈A"

A summed with B does not result in a set of sets unless A or B is a set of sets, as it results in a set containing the members of both sets

that means for B∈A to be correct, A would have to include the set B (not just the members of set B) irrespective of them being summed (it specifically has to be A, since for it to be B, B would have to be an element of itself, which is paradoxical)

>To my "descomplicando" paragraph, you again assume a black and white worldview in which something either is or isn't a crime, instead of seeing it as a greyscale where it sometimes is and sometimes isn't/most times is, sometimes isn't/most times isn't, sometimes is

that isn't an assumption, it's just how legality is defined, if something is only illegal in certain circumstances then only the combination of the thing and those circumstances is illegal, not the thing itself, not even partially

maybe people talk about it differently in portuguese, i have no idea since i'm frankly quite bad at it (which is why i've exclusively been replying in english), but what you said is just not how it works in english at least

>Something being illegal doesn't mean it is totally illegal. If I say murder is illegal that wouldn't be controversial at all, even if it is legal in several cases, like during a war, in a hostage situation or in self-defence or in property defence (which shouldn't be an exception but oh well)

murder *is* always illegal, by definition, since its definition has being unlawful as a criterion

saying "killing is illegal" would indeed be incorrect, because killing is only illegal in specific circumstances (such as murder), killing someone in self defense is simply not legally considered murder like you think

>Being unclear doesn't make one incorrect, makes them unclear, it only makes them unclear. If someone is unclear, the correct course of action is asking them to clarify what was unclear. It was not incorrect in this case due to my previous explanation

the problem wasn't a lack of clarity, it was a lack of *specificity*, and a lack of specificity doesn't necessarily make something incorrect either but it can when the more specific thing is correct but the broader thing it was replaced by is not

>It does make obscenity illegal the same way theft is illegal even when most theft is legal, whichever way you look at it

this suffers from the same problem as the murder argument
*taking something from someone without their consent* isn't always illegal, but theft specifically refers to doing that as a crime, so theft is always illegal, by definition

>I'd like to say I didn't oversimplify because the person I was talking to, that is, not you (iirc), did understand me, which was my point

an assumption would have been required for someone to understand you, and as assumptions are unreliable, a simplification that leads to requiring assumptions is an oversimplification
it can happen that someone got lucky and assumed the thing that was meant, but it's not something that should be relied on, that's why i specifically work to make sure what i say has as little ambiguity as possible

>Most possession cases never even become legal cases. Of the legal cases, most of them are for distribution and/or production, and there are several explanations for why but that's besides the point. When I say case I mean legal case not the absolute amount of people that have done, because that would legally not be a case and we're discussing law.

distribution and production are a (slight, around 60% iirc but the USSC website isn't loading for me lol) majority, but remember that virtually all distribution cases happen online, which wouldn't be covered by obscenity-related laws (only cp laws), that's my point, in the vast majority of cases only cp laws apply

>For overruled cases, yes they happen all the time. During the Biden admin it happened about once a year but in 2019 and 2018 there were three per year in each
What is rare is for it to cause a commotion

not at all, the fact there were only 4 in the last 4 (entire) years precisely proves just how rare they are

the SCOTUS hears ~100-150 cases per year (https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about), let's go with the average of 125

that's 500 cases, and only 4 of them overturned anything, that's 0.8%, it's virtually nothing

even if you consider that cases can be de facto overturned without being presented as such due to nuances of the court decision and decide to like, double that number, it's still a tiny amount compared to the total volume of cases

overturning precedent is extremely rare, precisely because it has such a low incidence rate (even if we *tripled* it, that would only be 2.4%)

it's also worth noting that the SCOTUS simply refuses to hear *thousands* of cases every year, and considering that results in the lower court's decision being upheld, that drives the percentage of net cases that were overturned even lower

4 cases only seems like a lot if you don't know how many cases the SCOTUS hears

i don't think that analogy makes much sense, since not ...

2025-02-22T20:36:17Z

In reply to nevent1q…9ew7
_________________________

i don't think that analogy makes much sense, since not wanting people to have a high confidence without high certainty doesn't mean they shouldn't do anything, it just means they should do just as much as their degree of certainty allows

in another analogy, having high confidence without high certainty is like pushing code to production without seeing if it passes integration tests, which is indeed something that isn't recommended in high stakes environments lol

that seems interesting, i definitely don't think people ...

2025-02-22T20:26:45Z

In reply to nevent1q…urjj
_________________________

that seems interesting, i definitely don't think people *should* be confident when they have a low degree of certainty since it increases the risk of something going wrong (compared to higher certainty with the same confidence or lower confidence with the same certainty), but it does seem like that's a common behavior, so fair enough, i shouldn't have assumed

the side that deviates the most (in terms of reasoning steps) ...

2025-02-22T20:19:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…j57a
_________________________

the side that deviates the most (in terms of reasoning steps) from the baseline both sides agree on (see: Bayesian/Solomonoff inductive inference)

more importantly, i don't think this is a matter of proving things? we both agree that fae seemed confidently incorrect at first

is the disagreement about whether someone being confidently incorrect is a valid reason to think they aren't willing to learn?

how was it an unjustifiable assumption, based on how fae acted ...

2025-02-22T20:12:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…lkf5
_________________________

how was it an unjustifiable assumption, based on how fae acted until that point? right now we seem to agree that it was a linguistic difference more than anything but we didn't know that at that point

sorry i didn't read this reply before sending my last one ...

2025-02-22T20:10:13Z

In reply to nevent1q…0gtc
_________________________

sorry i didn't read this reply before sending my last one (screenshot), is this what you were referring to? if so yeah that's probably it

there was definitely a misunderstanding, from what i can tell ...

2025-02-22T20:09:18Z

In reply to nevent1q…a3we
_________________________

there was definitely a misunderstanding, from what i can tell right now the most sensible explanation seems to be that you originally thought someone could be "charged with x" where x isn't a crime but instead related to a crime (i hope the fact that's not the case is clearer now?)

if that wasn't the misunderstanding, feel free to correct me

fae did improve since that point in the conversation, but i'm ...

2025-02-22T20:07:18Z

In reply to nevent1q…mtug
_________________________

fae did improve since that point in the conversation, but i'm referring to why i talked how i did before fae improved

this all boils down to "That desire is for everyone to get ...

2025-02-22T19:53:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…dj7j
_________________________

this all boils down to "That desire is for everyone to get something out of the arrangement and learn." being misinterpreted

that is the *initial* desire, but it stops being the case when someone shows they aren't willing to learn, at that point they may be excluded for the sake of everyone else

this is addressed in the last paragraph of my last comment, ...

2025-02-22T19:50:22Z

In reply to nevent1q…6y4u
_________________________

this is addressed in the last paragraph of my last comment, overturning precedent can happen but it's not a normal thing, it's not something people should *expect* to happen

the problem is that most people only hear about appellate court cases when it happens since other cases are just kinda boring lol, nothing changes (which is good, that's the point of stare decisis) most of the time so news companies don't write anything about them, meaning most people don't hear anything about them, it's sampling bias

>1Most would vague "doing x with obscenity" is an ...

2025-02-22T19:46:33Z

In reply to nevent1q…gsa3
_________________________

>1Most would vague "doing x with obscenity" is an ovscenity charge for the same reason passion crimes exist, they're aggravators which doesn't mean the thing (passion) is a crime

that would be an incorrect argument to make, it's just not how law terminology works, for someone to be charged with x *x has to be a crime*, it's that simple

>Latrocínio é o crime de roubo seguido de morte. Roubo e assassinato são ambos crimes, mas não sempre. Digamos que o caso do roubo seja de menos de 99 reais, assim não constituindo um crime, o latrocínio ainda é aceito como sendo o crime. Logo, o roubo de menos de 99 reais é crime se for cometido em conjunto com outro crime, nesse caso homicídio. É uma tecnicalidade, mas a verdade ainda assim, de que constitui crime nesse conjunto. . Pode-se criar a lei l={r+h| 0<r<+∞} -> r=c | ((99<c<+∞)⋃l)
A mesma lógica pode ser aplicada às leis de obscenidade estadounidenses, em que o=c quando o+c, mas é lei matemática que se um conjunto A somado com um conjunto B é igual ao conjunto A, B∈A, logo crimes de obscenidade são matematicamente um crime nos EUA. Matematicamente o que você disse é que obscenidade não é crime lá, a não ser quando ela é.

if you want to use formal notation, please at least use it correctly, for B∈A to be valid, A would have to be a *set of sets* that includes B, that is different from creating the "sum" (formally, union) of two sets as you claimed

that is to say, in your example if B = {1,2}, A = {{1,2},...}
A is a set of sets, so B∈A, which is separate from A = {1,2,...} (the "sum" or union, as you claimed), which would be B⊆A

i can't do anything with that in its current state, since what you said isn't even consistent with itself, for me to be able to argue against it you would need to fix mistakes such as the one above

>Descomplicando isso, temos que ela, em si, não é crime. Nem eu nem ninguém disse que é, apenas você disse que dissemos que é por conta de uma má interpretação de eu ter dito "obscenity charges". A palavra "obscenity" aqui significa relacionado a obscenidade e isso sim pode ser crime, é uma maneira de resumir um parágrafo inteiro.

being charged with x requires x being a crime, so yes, you saying obscenity charges exist *is* equivalent to you saying obscenity is a crime, someone can't be charged with x just because things related to x are crimes, they have to be charged with things related to x

>Agora, se tipos ou atos especificos de obscenidade ou relacionados a são ilegais, isso significa que obscenidade é ilegal, embora não em sua totalidade.

that is incoherent, something being illegal means it *is* totally illegal, if only specific things involving x are illegal, then those things are illegal but not x
your argument is based on the false premise that something can be illegal without being totally illegal

>Se fosse o caso de ser ilegal em sua totalidade, seria ainda menos aplicada pois isso pegaria os poderosos que fazem as leis e então seria emendada para ter exceções que facilitassem capitalistas e políticos se livrarem, como leis são geralmente feitas e emendadas. Você me acusa de estar errado por não ter sido específico o suficiente, mas sinceramente acho que está exagerando.

your lack of specificity did make you incorrect, that's not inherent to lack of specificity as a concept, but it was in this case due to what was previously mentioned

>O caso 2g1c é famoso, mas dúvido que alguém um dia tenha pensado que comer a prória merda é ilegal. De novo, chegamos à intencionalidade da lei V palavra da lei. A intenção da lei é proteger uma (suposta) vítima quando feita pelo povo ou proteger o capitalismo, quando feita pelos capitalistas. Em nenhum caso faria sentido impedir alguém de ser obsceno entre as quatro paredes ou ter obscenidade de maneira privada, logo tornando óbvia a afirmação de que nem toda a obscenidade é ilegal para quem tem alguma familiaridade com filosofia legal, que é mais simples de explicar do que a palavra da lei.

it is indeed obvious that obscenity isn't illegal, but that doesn't make saying "obscenity is illegal" (or things that imply it, such as "being charged with obscenity") any less incorrect
something being obviously incorrect simply doesn't stop it from being incorrect, your attempt to simplify it ended up *oversimplifying* it to the point of being incorrect

>Digo que seja em certos casos pois embora as leis em relação pornografia infantil existam, não são as únicas aplicáveis em muitos se não a maioria dos casos. O objetivo da frase é que não devemos nos ater apenas a palavra da lei daquilo que é explicitamente sobre nós quando tantas leis existem e seria teoricamente possível, mesmo que muito improvável, nos atacar legalmente usando leis que não são sobre pornografia infantil, como por exemplo, as leis de obscenidade, pois ainda assim se enquadra.

laws that rely on obscenity are far narrower in scope, as you previously mentioned it is not illegal to have obscene things in your own home and use them for personal purposes, while it *is* illegal to do that with cp

considering the sheer difference in scope, it's completely unrealistic to say that "many or most" cp cases could also fall under a law involving obscenity, due to how common possession cases are

the same concept also applies to distribution, since most distribution happens online and it is not illegal to post obscene things online (except in specific cases like sending them directly to a minor)

realistically, the only kinds of case in which you would be right about the applicability of obscenity criteria would be things like if someone literally sent printed cp through usps or something similar, which is nowhere near what was being discussed in the conversation (media on pedi)

>A turma do supremo sim discordou de usar ambos, mas nada os impede de o fazer no futuro ou criar exceções ao caso NY v Ferber. Novamente sugiro um pequeno estudo sobre a história dos direitos Miranda ou sobre Roe v Wade, que foi derrubado só porque sim, porque queriam. Não sou especialista em lei americana, mas o exemplo da lei de obscenidade para pornografia infantil foi ainda assim, um exemplo. Estou certo de haver outras leis que se encaixem por serem vagas o suficiente para isso e mais, existem casos que não se encaixam nas leis de pornografia infantil, como erótica infantil, que ainda se enquadram como obscenidade, o que devemos manter em mente.

and

>Tem sim, de novo peço que veja a história dos direitos Miranda, mais popularmente conhecido como o direito de ficar calado. Foi emendado muitas vezes para não inocentar o povo e inocentar a polícia

there's a reason Vega v. Tekoh and Dobbs v. Jackson (which contradicted Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade respectively) caused such a legal commotion when they happened, overturning precedent is *not a normal thing*, it's not something people should *expect* to happen

it occasionally happens, no one denied that (see also the Loper Bright case), the problem is the assumption that it's a casual thing that should be significant a factor in decisions people make in their lives, even though overwhelmingly stare decisis is respected (it just occasionally isn't)

that's why it's important that the outcome of this ...

2025-02-22T19:12:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…54zs
_________________________

that's why it's important that the outcome of this isn't something that's specifically for my own sake to begin with, i want everyone involved to benefit from the discussion

to put it simply, if someone doesn't want to accept they're being irrational, they're welcome to simply not benefit, that is their choice

pragmatism would only make sense in a context in which the outcome is specifically to benefit me, rather than everyone involved (which i just happen to be part of), then it would make sense to make sacrifices for it

the derailment occurred because you went on a tangent about how ...

2025-02-22T18:41:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…5q7h
_________________________

the derailment occurred because you went on a tangent about how "there was no disagreement", even though it was made explicit in my very first comment

>But even if it’s as irrational as them getting angry every ...

2025-02-22T18:39:28Z

In reply to nevent1q…583f
_________________________

>But even if it’s as irrational as them getting angry every time you mention peaches, if you know that mentioning peaches will piss them off and there is no actual reason to mention peaches in the first place, then just don’t mention peaches!!

why, though? why should it be my obligation to adhere to someone's irrational demands?

>No opinions are factual, that's why they are opinions. If ...

2025-02-22T18:37:08Z

In reply to nevent1q…r0xs
_________________________

>No opinions are factual, that's why they are opinions. If they were factual, they'd be fact

facts are in fact opinions, because both are fundamentally uncertain

that doesn't mean they are subjective, subjectivity refers to multiple opinions being simultaneously correct (which is only possible with some kinds of opinions), while uncertainty means the correct opinion may change with new evidence (as all may)

>rest of the comment

i explicitly cited multiple separate federal court cases and federal statute to prove what i said, saying "You say I'm wrong. I asked for sources on what would be right, but the only thing you can do is say i'm wrong, everyone is wrong and you are right" is deliberately ignoring me

i am giving you a chance to stop pretending i didn't say something just because it would look better for you if i hadn't

1. depends on the specific law, there are many laws that rely on ...

2025-02-22T18:31:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…a88d
_________________________

1. depends on the specific law, there are many laws that rely on obscenity to be (supposedly) constitutional, many (all?) federal ones are included in Title 18 Chapter 71 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-71)
1.1. notably, none of them make obscenity illegal, they make either specific kinds of obscene things illegal or doing specific things to obscene things (e.g., mailing them), so no one can be charged with obscenity, they can be charged with "doing x with obscenity" or "x kind of obscenity", that includes what you said

2. no, it isn't an "either/or", irl cp laws are specifically *about cp*, something being obscene can't make it legally cp, cp is indeed defined much more broadly than obscenity but they are still categorically separate legal concepts
2.1. quoting the court's opinion from NY v. Ferber:
Disagreeing with the state appellate court, the majority found that the law was constitutional. White stated that the obscenity test created in Miller v. California (1973) did not apply to child pornography because this type of content is a separate categorical exception to First Amendment protection, rather than a type of obscenity.

3. there is no basis for expecting long standing legal precedent to be changed solely because someone wants to convict you, refer to the stare decisis doctrine

the only reason i'm in this conversation is to improve ...

2025-02-22T18:17:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…wjds
_________________________

the only reason i'm in this conversation is to improve everyone's understanding of law

i am, of course, included in "everyone", but this isn't something explicitly to advance "my goals" or whatever else, so the idea that i have to pragmatically assume something is my fault when a basis for that was not provided just doesn't fit into the conversation

this conversation isn't specifically for me, it's for everyone, which just so happens to include me

opinions that aren't factual are not valid, with the rare ...

2025-02-22T18:14:26Z

In reply to nevent1q…6ee6
_________________________

opinions that aren't factual are not valid, with the rare exception of subjective subjects (which this is not)

what i said was indeed a factual opinion, one that was in direct response to something you said

you may not think there was a disagreement, but there objectively was, as you claimed someone was "charged with obscenity"

moreover, i was not smug at any point in this conversation, as nothing here made me particularly proud (confidence != pride) at all, much less (excessively proud*

the problem is that if someone can't put into words why they ...

2025-02-22T18:08:19Z

In reply to nevent1q…axl4
_________________________

the problem is that if someone can't put into words why they think i come off as aggressive, there is no basis for me to think it's not something on their end (and well, if it is on their and i don't have much of a reason to care)

that's why it's important for someone to explain why they have a problem with what someone does, rather than just saying they do

1. my point wasn't a reply to that, it was a reply to ...

2025-02-22T18:04:01Z

In reply to nevent1q…ppg3
_________________________

1. my point wasn't a reply to that, it was a reply to spag's claim that "obscenity charges" exist (rather than laws that use obscenity as a criterion)

2. irl child pictures don't even rely on obscenity to be illegal, since that is considered a completely separate exception to the first amendment (see: NY v. Ferber and Osborne v. Ohio), often including clothed ones (see: US v. Dost), you're right that the first amendment won't protect you but not because of what you said

3. regarding cartoons specifically, the current accepted definition of legal obscenity (see: Miller v. California) explicitly says art cannot be considered obscene, and as such it cannot be considered illegal under 1466A
3.1. this is why every single conviction about it involved either a plea deal or a lack of appeal to a higher court, the defendants basically just gave up

Any circumstances can be aggressive, including being ...

2025-02-22T17:58:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…ypus
_________________________

Any circumstances *can* be aggressive, including being confidently opposing, but aggression is not inherent to being confidently opposing. Otherwise, all arguments involving someone who understands a subject would be aggressive, since all arguments are about *opposing* sides trying to convince each other, and people that understand something are *confident* about it.

Since that doesn't automatically make something aggressive, what makes you think what i said was?

i'd prefer if people didn't get angry at anyone but back ...

2025-02-22T17:54:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…5xrt
_________________________

i'd prefer if people didn't get angry at anyone

but back to that, refer to https://cunny.beauty/notice/ArNsc1nJAf6fKKWIFM

(screenshot for reference) that isn't aggressive, it's ...

2025-02-22T17:54:26Z

In reply to nevent1q…my52
_________________________

(screenshot for reference)
that isn't aggressive, it's *confident*, but there is nothing there that attacks anyone

please point at an example

2025-02-22T17:52:01Z

In reply to nevent1q…cf9n
_________________________

please point at an example

who was aggressive?

2025-02-22T17:51:15Z

In reply to nevent1q…s42c
_________________________

who was aggressive?

>he was charged with obscenity

2025-02-22T17:49:42Z

In reply to nevent1q…wl32
_________________________

>he was charged with obscenity

people being confidently incorrect isn't nice lol

2025-02-22T17:46:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…q64t
_________________________

people being confidently incorrect isn't nice lol

it was a reply to your reply to my reply, so yes i did have a ...

2025-02-22T17:46:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…yl58
_________________________

it was a reply to your reply to my reply, so yes i did have a prior point in this convo, please don't say things that can be verified to be wrong by just checking the reply thing :p

indeed, i love when people prove my points for me

2025-02-22T17:44:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…juef
_________________________

indeed, i love when people prove my points for me

then it is a source unrelated to the conversation, my point is ...

2025-02-22T17:40:57Z

In reply to nevent1q…kxl5
_________________________

then it is a source unrelated to the conversation, my point is and has always been exclusively that obscenity isn't a crime, someone doesn't have to commit a crime to be legally jailable (there just has to be suspicion (which is extremely subjective) that they did)

1. news articles aren't valid sources about legal cases, ...

2025-02-22T17:39:14Z

In reply to nevent1q…dcvf
_________________________

1. news articles aren't valid sources about legal cases, since they're very rarely actually written by people that understand law (their job is to get attention, not to be legally accurate)
2. even if they were, a screenshot of one without a link certainly wouldn't be

without an actual case citation, that is meaningless

(also technically they do still violate the first amendment since ...

2025-02-22T17:37:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…8vwc
_________________________

(also technically they do still violate the first amendment since it doesn't have any clauses to allow such exceptions to exist, but it's a violation that both courts and the public seem to have just accepted so lol)

there is no such thing as being "charged with obscenity", ...

2025-02-22T17:35:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…ngr8
_________________________

there is no such thing as being "charged with obscenity", obscenity is a criterion that *allows* laws to exist when they would otherwise violate the first amendment

that is to say, instead of being charged with obscenity, someone may have been charged with a law that relies on obscenity to not be unconstitutional

and yes, the US likes to play the world police, that is unfortunately nothing new

i'm always horny lol

2025-02-21T23:32:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…ac34
_________________________

i'm always horny lol

Nostr event nevent1qqsrjkpa94777ag3mjjwstjwuh90hxfrfzj2p8sak4xkznqywvlfhcgzyrm22uylp9qchpjn3rq2whu24aca7gktlnypk6nrlxlp6qk583265l7zt62

2025-02-21T23:15:04Z

depends on the region tbh lol, southern US to northern brazil ...

2025-02-19T02:57:11Z

In reply to nevent1q…u4uk
_________________________

depends on the region tbh lol, southern US to northern brazil without the darien gap would probably "just" take like 3 days (which is still absurd so it's completely impractical, but not on the order of months lol)

but yeah i'm in the southernmost state here so it would take way longer to get to me specifically lol

darien gap + literal days of driving lol

2025-02-19T02:44:23Z

In reply to nevent1q…0ayd
_________________________

darien gap + literal days of driving lol

here basically all pizza places have them lol

2025-02-19T02:38:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…0w6h
_________________________

here basically all pizza places have them lol

what exactly they are depends on the restaurant but they usually ...

2025-02-19T02:36:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…mw43
_________________________

what exactly they are depends on the restaurant but they usually just have a dough kinda between a pizza and a pie (closer to a pizza) and sweet toppings/sauces instead of savory ones lol, like white chocolate and pistachios

people talk shit about brazilian sweet pizzas but they're ...

2025-02-19T02:24:56Z

people talk shit about brazilian sweet pizzas but they're genuinely great lol

Nostr event nevent1qqsfh4j8jz6wzjuxl5cllcxu84zh9pnrngmct78jvmggj7zyxy5s3rczyrm22uylp9qchpjn3rq2whu24aca7gktlnypk6nrlxlp6qk58326598h36d

2025-02-18T01:59:01Z

Nostr event nevent1qqs00sx88msvce9k3e2qve994zxe6crlsvjxnnypfsaevarmj0eh9pczyrm22uylp9qchpjn3rq2whu24aca7gktlnypk6nrlxlp6qk5832653hln2g

2025-02-18T00:16:33Z

It's hard for me to imagine being someone that hates a lot of ...

2025-02-14T01:49:20Z

It's hard for me to imagine being someone that hates a lot of people lol, hating takes too much work