Jump to content

Phoenix Wright

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Phoenix Wright

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/19/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    i like to study exoplanet atmospheres.
  • Location
    dm me for social security number

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Blazing Sword

Member Badge

  • Members
  • Staff


  • I fight for...

Recent Profile Visitors

35,067 profile views
  1. bro, you've only known her for 2 weeks. you're barely friends. ask her out
  2. as a dissenting opinion, i'd rather see these companies not get involved at all. i fucking hate when companies release commercials claiming to be on the moral side of history in order to sell a product (pepsi is the most recent egregious example, followed by gilette). fuck the nba, fuck blizzard, fuck nestle, etc. the nba has been injecting itself into china for decades, what tf yall expect them to do? the chinese people don't necessarily agree with the protests in hong kong. the reasons why are irrelevant. the point is, the nba choosing a side is bad for business, especially if that side is hong kong. you want to see businesses act morally? force them to by supporting legislation that does just that. how many of us wear shoes, for example, likely made in sweatshops? i'm not gonna point the finger at the nba when i'm part of the problem. especially when there's nothing i, or the nba, can do about china's political policy. the proper thing to do is to shut up about it--and if that doesn't work, "the views of (person) X do not reflect the views of (company) Y." that being said, if companies want to use their leverage to fight for democracy, i am indeed all for that. i just don't think it's companies, specifically, that should be blamed when they don't. it's all of us...
  3. oh please. saints fans have easily become my least favorite fanbase for the constant fucking whining. the only real bad thing for the saints that happened that night was brees getting injured. and of course, the handful of other injuries on both sides of the ball. saints got outplayed on all 3 phases. refs be damned.
  4. you're good at having correct opinions.
  5. getting into a conversation with someone you have already assumed will ignore you means you shouldn't have started talking in the first place. it's possible to be anti-immigration for myriad reasons--not just racism and xenophobia. so knowing the facts is helpful in those situations. shoblongoo makes the point that politicians are using immigrants as their scapegoat, etc etc and he's right. but i think if you read my post i'm not even making that sort of argument. what i said i think is still true, immigration is more subtle depending on how deep you'd like to go. if for whatever reason 400,000 people decided to immigrate into san diego, i don't think san diego could handle that (depending on how quickly it happens obviously, and i'm assuming in this instance that it'd be quick). i also said, in general, immigration is a net positive, so this is where shoblongoo's point comes in. in the united states, people who generally disfavor immigration are likely using them as a scapegoat or whatever. i'm aware of that bit, but more nuanced discussions can exist too. yeah, where? lol. you sound like a boomer--blissfully unaware of the exploitative nature of capitalism with a bs "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality.
  6. the problem with your argument is simply that it is all conjecture. your estimations arise from thin air if they're unsourced. what interdimensional observer is asking for, consequently, is a factual framework to argue in favor of immigration. the thing is, immigration is a nuanced subject. not all immigrants are the same and obviously not all immigration strategies are the same. for the united states, with the largest immigrant population in the world, the numbers tell us that immigration is a net positive--that's great for people like me who are pro-immigration. but, when you ask how certain immigrant populations are doing, you'll get very different stories. moreover, when you ask which cities/regions/states are actually able to support large influxes of immigrants, you'll get vastly different answers. this is why i think the best course of action is a general overview of the facts (read: average effects immigrants have on the country) and then much more research into a specific topic you might be interested in. how mexicans are doing in southern california is much different than how somalis are doing in minnesota. immigration is not always a good thing. mexico, specifically tijuana, could not actually sustain the recent migrant caravan from central america. their president, more reasonably than ours at least, wants to find a way to settle as many as possible. as nations, mexico and the united states sympathize with asylum seekers (in general, at the moment the current american administration appears wholly xenophobic), but it's simply not always feasible. what hurts these people is the lack of real problem solving because we're busy arguing about things that don't matter, like whether or not immigrants should be let in in the first place. on the topic of college, it's important to note that you might be lazy, but to me it sounds you're being extremely unfair to your peers and yourself. would you make the same arguments if you had to pay for primary school? (k-12.) if a 5th grader had to do extracurriculars to get themselves a sponsor to pay for school but didn't, are they lazy? the point i'm making is that college has rapidly become not a privilege for the elites, but a requirement for most skilled work. because it's a requirement, the onus, like primary school, like police, like firefighters, is on all of us (ie, the government) to fund education, not the individual. and, because of the expense, applying for one or two scholarships will only in rare cases be sufficient to pay for school; prospective students likely will have to apply to dozens. this is on top of school, applications for college, standardized tests, and outside stressors you aren't privy to. i reject your conclusion that your peers are lazy--instead i'd argue the state is putting too much of a burden on young people to pay for their futures.
  7. how hard do you laugh when writing this shit? lol 0) first, get to know the immigrants: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/ 1) the real "start" is a summary from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States 2) after getting a general overview, you're better off asking specific questions and consulting good sources (pew research, published articles, fbi stats, etc). sources in the wikipedia page will likely present you with excellent landing pages to start from on a whole host of topics regarding immigration.
  8. been watching the wire recently so it seems even more plausible than it prolly would have before lol
  9. this isn't necessarily true. if cars are banned in the future it'll be because there are better methods of transportation, hence we can afford to ban them. this country will ban things despite personal freedom. if you had bothered to look at any of the links i gave you, you'd be more aware of this. cars are horrible--they're horrible for the environment, they're horrible for our safety, and they're horrible for our wallets. i fully support banning cars (or heavily limiting their utility such that no one ever feels a need to drive) when it's viable. i also support subsidies that would speed up this process. you're missing my point which i'm trying to make as clear as possible but you aren't following: your opinion is meaningless. the supreme court's interpretation of a law is the law regardless of what their interpretation is and how incorrect you perceive it to be. if you'd like that to change, your only options are to support an edit to the constitution or support new laws that erase the old. or you could leave i suppose. i'd like you to look up the largest rebellions in human history (and modern human history) and then think really hard on how ridiculous your point of view on this is. as a hint, the largest march in american history is (generously) 2 million people. you're talking about mobilizing 150 million. yes. your point? unless you're suggesting to protest violently guns don't help with this. and pretty much always lose in modern times.... ...no
  10. you can cleverly ban them. what you do is ban smoking in every building, have designated smoking areas, and make a pack of cigarettes so expensive people can't afford them. it works. also, you talk as if alcohol is something that's figured out in a legal sense, but it isn't. there's a lot of strides to make in that area. it doesn't matter what kills more, what matters is how easily can we prevent future deaths. this is vague and therefore useless... sure they can--they're literally the interpreters of the law! if you've got a problem with it, for the 5th time, you are in support of an edit to the constitution. what on earth...do you actually think this is plausible? even if this were true, you don't need bp materials to make the armor. there's no reason for it. we're talking about civilians, not militaries. if the enemy is loaded and you're not, you're going to be scared regardless. still bad.
  11. if you don't think it's worth it to save lives then i think we've drawn an uncrossable line between ourselves. i'm not sure why you believe in the rule of law at all with such a belief. maybe. the thing is, those are easy enough to fake and the us, as tryhard has pointed out, cares very little at the moment for mental health issues. it wouldn't be enough. no, it's their job to interpret it. i don't know how many times i need to say this, but if you disagree with the interpretation, then you want a new law written. the executive branch's job is to uphold the law. it does not depend on the percentage revolting. first of all, good luck getting 50% of a nation-state to revolt (that's a ridiculous percentage). secondly, you are still depressingly unaware of the force behind the us military. again, this is not the 1800s. you've talked about medieval armor, rebellions, and morale like we're living in the times of yore--but we're not, xray. guns do not "boost morale." (please cite why you feel it does.) the united states is a nation with one of the highest guns per capita in the world but our election turnouts are abysmal and the political efficacy of our citizens has remained quite low for decades. guns exist and have always existed to kill. unsurprisingly, that's what we've seen them do more than virtually any other nation... so you've admitted 2 things: 1. the point you brought up was irrelevant 2. you aren't reading my posts because i've directly stated it... ps, in a discussion thread if i ask for an opinion the purpose is for discussion
  12. you are responding to logical points of dialogue emotionally and are beginning to respond in ways that make little sense. it's now clear to me you're not here to listen, just argue. i'll try to speak more plainly from now on. anyway, i don't care who gun owners are; that's irrelevant. when something is dangerous, you try to mitigate the danger that something represents. as a ridiculous example, say i am an alligator trainer and can keep my alligator in check wherever i happen to bring it. should i be allowed to take it for a stroll in the mall? take it to the gym? bring it with me on a date? i hope for this discussion's sake the answer is no because it's not the human i'm necessarily worried about, it's the threat and possibility of violence (accident or no) i'd like to prevent. reminder: this is a ridiculous example, but this is how it works on a fundamental level for all dangerous things. i'm not interested in the people operating the dangerous things--in fact, the whole point is to remove them from the equation (because they're often the most chaotic component). i don't know how to respond to this, honestly. just so you know, culture can change. and does. constantly. it used to be our culture to force black people to go to different schools and drink from different fountains. i don't understand why you're saying this. you brought this up and keep talking about it... you know, the problem with that is there's no way to know if those people are deadly until after they commit the crime. so i'm interested in crime prevention, which is a fundamental reason for law. https://www.theonion.com/it-s-an-honor-to-continue-being-valued-over-countless-h-1819585030 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) militia, today, refers to the military reserves in certain corps (still federally controlled) and all able-bodied citizens... and militia as the 2nd amendment refers to have not existed for nearly 200 years...and even back then it was never rag-tag soldiers. they were professionally trained and everything. at the time, it was essentially the united states' standing army... the supreme court is the supreme law lol. if you think the sc is "grossly twisting" the words of the constitution, then you should be arguing the constitution needs an edit lmfao. in us v darby lumber: "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. " it does not grant rights, it simply says any that are not surrendered are retained. as states have the power to take rights away, the people therefore retain only the rights not surrendered under federal and state laws. the point is there are restrictions. also, if you sell the alcohol, that is technically illegal--it's just hard to catch someone committing that sort of crime. i meant that as someone who does drugs (rarely nowadays but still) and knows enough about cocaine to tell you it's not worth it lol. if you want an upper molly is better, or even adderall or someshit lol. i'm not sure what drugs you've done already, but "hard drugs" extend much farther than cocaine/crack, meth, and heroin. there's a lot of cool shit out there if you can get your hands on it. in your country, should tanks be allowed in public areas? where would these tanks go? morale booster for...who? lol "probably" not what the military has? my friend, you need to read up on the forces maintained by the united states government. citizens have no hope of a violent uprising. this isn't the 1800s. many brits do say that, just as many americans say what i said (often in much stronger terms). this shouldn't be a surprise, but i'm american so i don't really get why you think this is even worth arguing.
  13. i agree with everything here and didn't mean to imply that: 1. what i'm proposing here is good enough (as you said, it definitely is not) 2. that it should happen at the state level--we need a national change and for anyone who's reading that going, "that'll never happen": 1. i'm aware it's far-off from right now, but i'm not a legislator that has to compromise with anyone, so i can be as idealistic as i want 2. people have been convinced of dangerous ideals pretty quickly throughout history--i don't think trying to convince the american public guns are more dangerous than they think is out-of-touch. this is a moot point because i'm interested in making deadly people less deadly (or removing them from society in a humane way), not trying to decrease the number of deadly people (which, right now, is not a controllable factor). taking away guns makes people less deadly, period. this is not something that can be disagreed with... yes, protection is a legitimate reason, but few actually need it. i used to live in one of the most dangerous areas in the country (certainly california) and we didn't need guns. besides a home invasion in which you catch the perp first, i don't see any scenarios in which owning a gun diffuses the situation. truck drivers, etc. have legitimate reasons to own guns, yes. but, how much gun violence is prevented by truck drivers, etc owning guns? does it outweigh how much gun crime could be prevented by taking guns away from (most of) the public? 2 points of confusion: 1. "State" refers to the country, not an individual state. though, this is ambiguous (another reason for an edit!) 2. courts set precedent--so a "twisting and stretching" of a law is to edit that law to mean something new. so--another reason to edit the law! wrong, the 10th amendment grants rights to the states first, then to the people. that's an important distinction because it's another filter of our personal freedoms. unwarranted advice, but i don't think you should trust lawmakers with a goddamn thing. this is possibly the worst thing you could have admitted to me. lawmakers are elected for a reason--you need to pay attention and hold them accountable! if what you share kills people, even on accident, you'll go to jail (or prison). also, so few people make alcohol personally that it just hasn't needed to be addressed yet. guns are far more prolific (and far more dangerous by themselves). since when do bulletproof vests look like armor from the middle ages? what are you saying here?? it is not a slippery slope. i gave a clear purpose for banning them (or at least the widespread sale of them) and kept it at that. it was specific with specific reasoning behind it. it's so far from a slippery slope that you're strawmanning to the point that i don't even know what you're talking about lol. cocaine is not worth it, seriously. i truly feel for the people of your country that would have to deal with random people owning rpgs and landmines... the second amendment obviously fails to do this... something much less dangerous can hold that symbolic value much better... "thoughts and prayers" do not topple governments. action topples governments. to overthrow the current government of the united states, you either coup or do it legally via impeachment, amendments, etc. so yes, civilians can (and should) absolutely be involved, but guns would never be an effective part of it. you're rambling a bit here, but i would suggest to not place so much importance on that one document. keep in mind that document was borne of a rebellion on a much smaller scale than you think...(paying a very small share of taxes to the home government)
  • Create New...