On the absolute surface level, you make what seems to be a good point. I don’t think that point holds up to scrutiny, though, and such lazy (no offense meant by this; I’m not calling you lazy, only the point you’ve made) reasoning is not far removed from using “think of the chldren!” to justify an agenda.

Any dwelling that is not yours is generally assumed to be off-limits absent an invitation to enter. Ignoring that and breaking into said dwelling is implicitly a statement that you are disregarding the safety and security of the inhabitants. That further implies that you equally have no regard for the health and well-being of the inhabitants, as your actions are putting your needs or desires ahead of theirs. You have, wittingly or not, made yourself a threat to the inhabitants of the dwelling.

Responding to an immediate, credible threat against one’s life with lethal force is quite rational.

I have no doubt that this will have detrimental long-term effects on the boy. I also have no doubt that the very experience of being present during a home invasion would have had similar long-term effects.

A ban is imposed on a person or an action. It can be rescinded at any time, but remains in place until it is explicitly rescinded. An expiration can be included in the terms of the ban, which automatically rescinds the ban after a set duration. The base definition of “ban” implies nothing about duration. Without clarification, any assumption regarding duration is baseless. Such clarification can be direct, such as including a clear statement of the period for which the ban is in place during the issuance of the ban, or indirect, such as context clues regarding the severity of the infraction that led to the ban being issued.

A suspension is placed upon statuses, privileges, credentials, or the like. Suspension is, by nature, a transitory state. Examples include being suspended from a job pending investigation of behavior, having one’s club membership suspended until club dues are brought current, or having one’s login credentials suspended while one’s account appears to be compromised. The transitory nature of a suspension implies that it resolves upon completion (or inaction on) of a task related to the object of the suspension. Upon completion of the sub-task, status is either reinstated or terminated. In the previous examples: employment is terminated upon conclusion of an investigation that proves the employee acted inappropriately, club membership is reinstated once payment of the outstanding balance is verified, account credentials are reinstated with access limitations once the account owner proves they are in control of the account.

Suspension is a step along the path to termination or revocation, not to a ban. The two terms are not directly related in that way. There can be overlap, but they are not different degrees of the same concept.

Needing a fire prevention officer, are we?

And it was also the night that the skeletons came to life.

You’re talking about La Folette and Wheeler? I don’t remember anything they advocated for being too bad, but I haven’t looked at their proposed policies in a long time. Wouldn’t that be natural of a truly progressive movement, though? What was “progressive” one hundred years ago should hopefully be status quo, and what’s progressive now could scantly be imagined back then.

Current.

As the bartender, she had cut-off and 86 authority. Act sideways with a bartender, find another place to drink. But when the creeps are your “peers” I think it’s tougher to navigate.

Tiger Daly

The lack of votes for Harris did that.

What I’m saying is not about faithless electors. I never mentioned them, so I’m not completely sure what took you down that road.

There is a legal definition of the term “president-elect” that hasn’t entirely been sorted out. The most widely accepted view is that the candidate who has the majority of EC votes cast for them, regardless of whether those votes have been counted or certified, is legally the president-elect. The nuance to this is that any reference to the president-elect before EC votes have been cast is using the common term, not the legal one.

The distinction is mostly inconsequential, one major exception being the 20th amendment, which you cited previously. That particular usage is specifically the legal definition, which very likely has not been satisfied until the EC casts their votes. The outcome is that, if those who are meant to uphold the law have any interest in doing so, the 20th amendment does not yet apply, and the legal roles of president-elect and vice president-elect are currently vacant.

Citation needed.

We (probably) don’t have a president-elect yet, only a presumptive one. The EC votes have been neither cast nor counted. The most likely point in time at which a candidate becomes president-elect is when the majority of the EC votes have been cast for that candidate, regardless of the counting and certification. Even though we use the term loosely for the assumed winner, the EC adds a layer of weirdness to the legal definition.

Thought I recognized your name, LARPer.

Aren’t you the sad sack who gets off thinking about killing your father-in-law and blowing up your local ISP?

Fucking gross, you ghoul.

Piss is not sterile.

Piss is not sterile.

Analogy is not good, either. But kudos to anyone still trying to make it work.

Once the bar is lowered even further? Yeah sure, why not? Everyone will.

I don’t know, you’re toying with the idea of mass fraud with no real basis. Seems counterproductive at best.

Highly, highly doubtful

If they’re losing so many electrons, they must be pretty positive by now.