Micah Mileto

cool find

If you believe in psychology pseudoscience, what is your opinion on the idea that psychology is just a scam designed to make people feel ashamed of themselves?

Could one argue that the law is being broken by not digging up the grave at Arlington for another autopsy?

Are you sure Thuoy and Calloway can't be the same person?

Trust me, I know. I'm about to release 400 pages on the tracheostomy. You know about the chest tube incisions right above JFK's nipples, right? And how the Parkland witnesses all insisted that the chest tubes were inserted all the way into the pleural cavity, while the Bethesda pathologists claimed the incisions were only superficial and the pleura was totally intact?

Is Sharon Thuoy Sharon Calloway? https://jfk.emuseum.com/objects/21462/sharon-calloway-oral-history?ctx=f11e088c207c7ffb8ed89774e3af0625bf2b4f12&idx=0

I love the part when Allen Dulles walks into Dr. Humes' testimony late, and when Humes was describing the chest tube incisions made at Parkland, Dulles asks "Are you describing exit wounds?", to which Humes replies "Sir, these are knife wounds".

Take the attitude displayed in your comment and try applying it to the example I gave about skimpy clothing. It definitely sounds like you are giving an opinion about responsibility rather than cause. I think that the application responsibility is a subjective political opinion that implies a functional wide-reaching solution to a problem. Cause is just an observation of physics - again, remember my example about a car accident between two cars being "caused" by a third car making a legal pass on a road, or that third driver being on the road at that moment because the gas station clerk took two extra seconds to count change. Was the clerk responsible for the accident? See, conflating cause and responsibility is madness. I basically do not believe that one should necessarily judge a political policy using real-world examples from the past or present, because there are always too many factors to consider, so many factors that it may indeed be impossible for the human mind to consider so many factors at the same time. I think debating in this way just becomes a pretentious game of exchanging trivia. I do not want to exaggerate my abilities to judge a real life situation, and you shouldn't, too. For example, is it fair to say the United States is wealthy because of capitalism? The USA benefits from the exploitation of workers overseas who do not have the same rights as people within the geographical USA - wouldn't it be fair to factor-in the poverty of those workers when trying to assess the wealth of the USA? And is it not true that the rich enjoy socialism while only the poor must deal with capitalism? Also, your idea of a "thriving city" seems to be one that participates in the holocaust of modern prison, and one that benefits from the slave labor of prisoners, and many of those prisoners are there because of the drug trade, which should not be considered a crime. Do you believe in democracy? Imagine you went back in time and tried to convince an ancient king to institute democracy. The king would laugh and tell you the average population cannot be trusted with important decisions, and maybe he would even give you some examples of the average population destroying themselves thorough their own wishes. What would you say to that? "Oh, trust me, democracy is a good principal no matter what, it'll all work out in the future"?

Where did you hear this? I can't find any reference to a Sixth Floor museum interview where Sharon Thuoy said there were x-rays made at Parkland. https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/TSFM_Oral-History-Full-List-alph.pdf

See what I already said about conflating cause and responsibility, and how that is one of the most common logical fallacies in people's thinking. Also if there were no laws against heroin, heroin could be sold at Walgreens, where it's purity would be regulated, and where other less dangerous drugs would also be offered for the same price.

"Nuts" implies the existence of a "normal". I do not believe that "normal" is a useful concept. Also, nice using mental health medication as an insult. I'm sure your "friends" would appreciate that stray bullet.

I believe that stripping people naked like this is sexual assault. I don't care if they said afterwards that they thought it was justified - also, if they didn't think it was justified, they wouldn't want to talk to you. I believe in freedom. I think that freedom is more important than both safety and even happiness itself. Freedom is not necessarily a means of acquiring safety and happiness, freedom is important in it's own right. I think it would be more ethical to just let adults commit suicide whenever they feel like it. EDIT: BTW do you think it would be justified for the government to force everybody to take happy pills if the pills had no side-effects?

"The use of drugs (in the US at least) is essentially legal"???? Dude, there is no coming back from that cringe. You just posted cringe.

Blatantly false. You gave this line to the wrong person. If you are bothering to bring up anecdotal evidence, I have anecdotal evidence of my own. Drugs being illegal is nothing short of a holocaust. Legalizing drugs could very well reverse racism in the USA. You also seem to ignorantly believe that driving high on weed is anything like drunk driving. Studies have debunked that to the moon. Alcohol is still the most dangerous drug in the world, and any replacement for it would be greatly appreciated. Also, when you say that you have "been on several suicide watches", are you saying that were were directly involved in stripping people naked? If you have, then I can't even say here what I think about you. You also never actually gave any reason to believe that legalizing drugs would raise addiction rates. Nowhere in your four paragraphs is an actual argument for why people should believe that. Drug decriminalization instead of legalization is stupid for multiple reasons. The government cannot use the illegal drug market to benefit it's economy. Drug users are not offered a selection of drugs which could give them the opportunity to try less dangerous drugs. Decriminalization does not solve the problem of accidental overdoses. Decriminalization still gives officers an excuse to stop people for no reason (enabling racial profiling), and it still often involves the prosecution of drug dealers who have done nothing wrong. Rehab is counterproductive because it scars your record in a background check, and there are no adequate workers rights anywhere in the world.

What genius decided to make legal weed more expensive than illegal weed? Weed grown tax-free with plenty of American land would be as cheap as corn. Cheap legal weed would be like a fire extinguisher to the cartels. Why are you choosing to take every opportunity to blame freedom and make excuses for taking away people's freedom?

Do you think that legalizing all drugs in the United States would strengthen the cartels south of the border? Even if that were somehow true, I would simply say that the problem should be blamed on the government. Who's the reason why legal weed isn't cheaper than corn? Drugs being illegal is a holocaust. Holocausts don't heal overnight.

I blame the immoral actions of the cartels on the freedom-hating governments and peoples who choose to keep drugs illegal. If drugs are ever legalized, it will take decades or centuries for society to reverse the damage caused by drugs being illegal.

Also, I don't think it should be legal to force children to learn Hebrew. In fact, I believe that a large portion of school is just pointless child abuse, financial abuse and slavery because most of the information taught at school is not useful to the careers of average people. How is it fair that I make enough money to afford an apartment, and yet the average middle schooler works more than twice as hard as me? Child labor never ended, it just got stupider.

That's none of your business. I don't want the government to decide what drugs go into my body. I also believe in the right for any adult to buy cyanide for the purpose of killing themself - so clearly I am not going to think addictive drugs should be illegal. I think you have the attitude of a freedom hater - the definition of a freedom hater is somebody who is always willing to accept unprovable arguments in favor of taking away people's freedom, but never willing to use unprovable arguments in favor of giving people more freedom. It is conceivable that the state could still exist even if the addiction rates got higher as a result of drugs being illegal (and you can't prove that they would). I believe in only sacrificing enough freedom to result in the minimum amount of safety necessary to protect the existence of the state - not necessarily the people inside of the state (although sometimes both interests overlap). Drugs being illegal is why I think that literally all police figures are bad people on a personal level. Again, I am not even bothering to explore the basic arguments for why legalizing drugs would lower addiction rates. And you probably already understand that legalized drugs would lower the accidental overdose rates.

Pat, I never said that I believe freedom has infinite importance, or that safety has zero importance. All I said was that freedom is more important than safety. Think of freedom as being worth a dollar and safety as being worth a dime - a truckload of dimes is not worth less than one dollar. I believe that my position in naturally resistant to strawman arguments (like all murder being legalized) because a minimum level of safety is required for a state to enable the it's citizens to enjoy other kinds of freedoms. Compare that to somebody who would claim to believe that safety is more important than freedom - a state could technically exist without any freedom at all, so their position does not have any naturally built-in requirment of freedom.

On your "lives ruined by heroin dealers" - you seem to be conflating cause and responsibility. The concept of responsibility is a subjective political opinion, and is often used as a mere a construct of practicality, not a perfect philosophical way to judge morality. "Cause" could be something like somebody who had a crime committed against them by somebody who thought their skimpy clothing was a motivation for their crime - but you can see how obviously horrible it would be to conflate cause and responsibility in that situation. Another example: a horrific car accident happens shortly after somebody legally passed somebody else on a road - the passing of the car could have been a necessary part of the chain of events, but it would be wrong to hold them responsible in the court of law or the court of public opinion. Personally, I blame the government for "lives ruined by heroin", not the dealers, because the government is responsible for drugs being illegal, and legal drugs certainly could have changed the situation. That is my subjective opinion on responsibility.

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm

Just because I said that I believe in the principal of liberty-over-security doesn't mean that I could not make the argument that legalizing all drugs would also result in more security. You seem to believe that legalizing all drugs would increase the addiction rates. You cannot actually prove that. I strongly suspect that legalization would actually lower addiction rates. And basic logic shows that legalization would lower accidental overdoses to virtually zero. Somebody who is intending to try recreational drugs could consult a medical professional on how to avoid accidental overdose and addiction. If heroin were sold at Walgreens, that heroin would be of a consistent purity. Also, a medical professional could suggest that patients try other kinds of less-dangerous drugs before they go trying harder drugs. There are plenty of drugs that bring euphoria that don't have the same level of danger as heroin. I think the fact that we don't have such safeguards is the fault of the government, not dealers. I cannot absolutely prove my ideas, but nobody can disprove them either, and I think that sometimes, the simple fact that one cannot disprove an idea is enough to embrace it because the benefit of the doubt should be given to freedom (negative rights against authority figures forcing their will onto you). And, as I just said to Pat, If one does not subscribe to the principal of liberty over security, then they may as well admit to not believing in any liberty at all. This is because there is no shortage of important-sounding arguments in favor of increasing security at the expense of liberty. EDIT: Also, I am only a libertarian socially, fiscally I believe in state communism.

If one does not subscribe to the principal of liberty over security, then they may as well admit to not believing in any liberty at all. This is because there is no shortage of important-sounding arguments in favor of increasing security at the expense of liberty.

Fun fact: plea bargains are a form of torture. This torture is being justified by the incorrect notion that the Justice system can be trusted to find the truth.