Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
All the way back to the 38th parallel...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A bogus claim. They can make up whatever number of illegal migrants living in the country to fabricate a "low crime" rate.
Most criminal statistics are poorly understood. For example it would be very foolish to assume that arrests are proportional to crimes and nothing else.
Locals are always more likely to be arrested for the same crime because they are inherently more likely to be recognized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
but not when judging the generalizationThat's what I'm saying, you shouldn't be judging a generalization, you should be judging individuals.
No, when dealing with an individual you should judge individuals as individuals. That is where the generalization must give ground to specific evidence.
The generalization is by definition the result of many individual instances. Generalization can be useless and false when based on bad logic, but they can also be perfect when the definition of the category is logically bound to the implication.
All Christians believe Jesus is god. That's not a false generalization, it's in the definition so it is perfectly accurate. Any exceptions aren't actually christian.
Racial generalizations are all useless because the small genetic variations that accumulated in the deep past (and which have been decreasing for hundreds of thousands of years) are orders of magnitude less relevant than culture and experience (nurture).
Cultural generalizations are neither useless nor perfect. Cultural generalizations must yield to individual fact but they have predictive power and have a place in inductive logic (fuzzy logic).
It is moral and rational to judge that islam is unfair to individual women because if its absolute reliance on generalizations. It is moral and rational to judge that a culture group with a high prevalence of ritualistic canibalism is dangerous, incompatible with civilization, and ought to be destroyed or altered.
The reason people are upset is because it's already a well known fact that mass influx of poor people with different language and culture is going to create problems.What problems? I can't think of any really big ones, so please elaborate.
Well recently: eating geese, crashing vehicles they were driving without a license, taking over apartment complexes and demanding taxes, being given 150k loans from the government (which is stolen money)
"Tensions have been heightened since August 2023 after a 36-year-old Haitian immigrant, Hermanio Joseph, lost control of a minivan he was driving without a valid US license on a highway near Springfield and strayed into the path of an oncoming school bus."
BTW according to gun-control logic anything that kills kids must be banned, and apparently illegal immigration kills kids.... but since it is illegal it was already banned.... mmm maybe somebody should enforce the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
The key to being anti-racist is to ascribe all traits to race and then refuse to acknowledge the existence of fault individually or collectively of any race except something call "Caucasian". That's what I've picked up anyway, but it can be more complicated because individuals can present as the faultless non-caucasian but on the inside they're the dreaded evil race.Here’s my POV on this. I think the real way to be anti-racist is just to be colorblind in a way.
Moozer, I hope you can see my post was pure unadulterated 100% certified origin mockery?
I think you should see color and race, you just shouldn’t let it affect anything.
Uh huh, well since all great apes have excellent color vision and ingrained facial recognition software I don't think there was ever really a possibility of literally failing to see race. Colorblindness meant "don't let it affect anything".
Stereotypes can be real
For example: People who come from a very different country are likely to have a very difficult culture and likely to do things that locals would not even dream of doing.
best to ignore them when judging someone
but not when judging the generalization. The reason people are upset is because it's already a well known fact that mass influx of poor people with different language and culture is going to create problems. It was already illegal. Therefore, and rightly so, people are blaming the government for those problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So when are we required to wear white armbands with a black "C" on them?
Well that's going to require them to flip on voter ID attitudes, so expect a delay of 300 milliseconds.
Some might argue that the armband, while necessary for the secret Cs like those brown skinned persons who doubted whether they would vote for Biden, are unnecessary for those who appear to have light skin and typical european features.
BUT! You must take into consideration that the blood of native americans is ultra-potent in counteracting the evil inclination of the caucasian. Doesn't even take one drop. See for example Elizabeth Warren who had 1/1024 native american ancestors.
Taken all together we can see the only reliable indicator of being an evil race (and an evil racist because only cacuasians can be racist) is your voting and social media habits. You vote blue no matter who, you're probably a good one.
Beware though, the evil racists might attempt to use this intersectional science to try and trick the compassionate melanin rich people of the world. How? If they suggest that the brown people who ate their pets were considering for voting for Trump first.... this insidious lie might lead people to think that the pet snatching is just another aspect of the vile whiteness as opposed to trying to keep your pets off the BBQ as being an expression of white supremacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Still didn't exist and therefore could not have possibly been considered at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment.
Again: There were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them. Someone should tell Trump it will be very easy to shut MSNBC up. <-this is your argument being defeated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The key to being anti-racist is to ascribe all traits to race and then refuse to acknowledge the existence of fault individually or collectively of any race except something call "Caucasian". That's what I've picked up anyway, but it can be more complicated because individuals can present as the faultless non-caucasian but on the inside they're the dreaded evil race.You would have to be a "racist" to not see that fully legitimate generalization!
For example if you don't know if you're voting for Trump or for Biden: secretly caucasian.
Or if you're someone who looks like an east asian but believe in time, hardwork, and fair college admissions; that's right: secretly
caucasian
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's not a mistake to limit the meaning of your words to things that existed at the time you wrote themThere were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them. Someone should tell Trump it will be very easy to shut MSNBC up.This is why we have courts to litigate these issues.
How convenient for the courts and those who control them, the words mean whatever they want them to mean. Your argument was defeated, if you don't admit before going a different direction that makes the new direction a red herring.
A nuclear warhead does not fit into any conception of an arm which the framers had at the time they wrote those words.
It is not a weapon which existed or could be predicted but it is a weapon. They understood the concept of a tool used to make war.
No genius
Well review the thread, you just conceded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them. Someone should tell Trump it will be very easy to shut MSNBC up.It's not a mistake to limit the meaning of your words to things that existed at the time you wrote them
it's absurd to assume that anything one would later invent (like a nuclear warhead) becomes automatically built into the law you wrote because they decided to call it an arm.
They didn't decide to call it a weapon. It is a weapon.
Because if you're a lawmaker then it's literally your job.
To pass laws at random until somebody proves that they aren't helping? I don't think so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
So probably an innocent person.a rioter convicted of participating in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Wait so you get to decide my intent and the meaning of my words depends on my intent, which you decide. You must be an ADOL scholar, congratulations!lol, you really thought that was clever.
It's not hard to look clever when reflecting nonsense back at someone.
Secondly you said that the meaning of words depended on intent, and intent which apparently changes after you die making it some kind of mystical property only discernible by the tech priests known as "scholars".Intent is where the meaning becomes objective. Someone's interpretation of your words is irrelevant to what you were actually trying to say because the message you intended to convey is a matter of objective fact.
The first sentence seems to contract the second, regardless either way is wrong. There is such a thing as misinterpretation and miscommunication both.
I can mean "buy me coffee" while writing "buy me a drink" and someone can interpret that as "I want to start dating you".
"buy me a drink" has a meaning determined by the consensus of English speakers. That's the objective meaning in context. Where intent and comprehension differ from the objective meaning is error.
If you're more concerned with the words used than message being conveyed you aren't communicating.
Thinking you can ignore the law because you feel comfortable assuming the words written were a mistake because you assume you knew what they would have intended given information they didn't have doesn't work too well either.
In fact 95% of the time you or anyone else accuse me of a strawman it's because you didn't make your 'intent' clear (you used language imprecisely or incorrectly) and then you got mad because I read between the lines. Don't be a hypocrite.
These are not analogous to what we're talking about.
So everything requires balance except for those things which are not analogous, in other words everything requires balance except for those things that don't require balance. Useful saying you got there, dead end ignored.
because rights don't do you any good when you're dead.
and violating the rights of intelligent violent apes that number in the billions and carry guns is not very safe. Also, right to die?
It's not a fallacy when the slope is slippery and there are a lot of people at the bottom of that slope who started with the best intentions.It's a fallacy to claim X will lead to Y when not only is that demonstrably untrue
You think you demonstrated something?
If you don't think the problem can be solved by law then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.If you think you can prove that all problems are soluble by law until proven otherwise then make that caseWhy would I make the case to defend something I never argued?
You implied it. If the default wasn't that every problem is soluble by law then why would I need to prove that mental health is insoluble by law? It was a possibility, and not one that any legislator has to prove either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Answer yes or no, unless you want to keep running away.I already answered, clearly.
It was a "yes or no question", answer it more clearly. If you don't answer it now, I will just assume you cant answer it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Answer yes or no, unless you want to keep running away.So when the majority want a genocide that's not murder?Majority/government decides what is and isnt murder. Thats how its always been.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So when the majority want a genocide that's not murder?Which people?Usually majority or the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They love them some war (profits).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
How are those one party rule cities working out? What's wrong, got nothing good to say about communism all of a sudden?State government has more power than city government.
Which means nothing if they aren't willing to use it, as republicans are because they naively believe in american style federalism as a concept.
Blue cops, blue prosecutors, blue judges, blue juries, blue restrictions all with total power in the blue cities with almost no examples where state laws prevent them from tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The state is the real problem.we need leadership to tackle real problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
No I don't, but if he meant to do it that lends support to the conspiracy theorists because the sculpted persona they created would never have done such a thing. Remember "Ultra Maga" in front of the blood red backdrop?I don’t know for sure why he did what he did, and neither do you.
He told us a dozen different ways that "MAGA" was not America. He was going to battle for the soul of America against the dragon which was MAGA extremists.
Either that was a lie, or this is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
rofl, wherever you've been hanging out it has not helped the radicalization meter.Ultimately, the whole "brown people ate my pet" meme is no more than fairly straightforward and well established semantic code meaning"White Power"
Who but a white supremacist would dare accuse someone of eating their pet!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
right, simply repeating what his handlers say is so automatic that they can't even be bothered to stop after he's no longer their vehicle.Apparently it was a 9/11 gesture of unity.
He had no idea what he was doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The meaning of words is determined by their intentI see, well I intend to always be right. That should cut down on our disagreements?It would if it were true, unfortunately you prefer to attack the caricature of me you invented so the disagreements will likely continue.
Wait so you get to decide my intent and the meaning of my words depends on my intent, which you decide. You must be an ADOL scholar, congratulations!
I never said words don't have meaning
You implied it in two different ways. First you said anything created by man is subjective. Words are created by man, therefore you said words are subjective. Secondly you said that the meaning of words depended on intent, and intent which apparently changes after you die making it some kind of mystical property only discernible by the tech priests known as "scholars".
What I said is that determining what someone is saying isn't as simple as you pretend it is.
"it's more complicated than that" isn't an argument.
And most people in their subjective opinions think that ensuring the safety of it's citizenryAt the cost of the primary function?It's not an all or nothing proposition.
It's one before the other, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I was just pointing out that of the things I am objectively correct in saying, this is not a new or unique claim.
Everything in life requires balance.
What's your balanced intake of sarin gas? What's the right balance between murder and non-murder? How much contradiction should be mixed in with truth?
It's a slippery slope fallacy.
It's not a fallacy when the slope is slippery and there are a lot of people at the bottom of that slope who started with the best intentions.
There is no such thing as absolute rights because then they would come into conflict with each other
That just means you failed to derive them correctly.
so reasonable restrictions have always been unavoidable
As if those who pursued those restrictions tried to avoid them.
Your conception of rights as some impenetrable thing that would lead to the downfall of society should they be the slightest bit infringed is pure fantasy.
That's what they said about the united states, and the abolition of slavery, and universal suffrage, and letting the homosexuals keep their balls.
Reading comprehension indeed...
Fine, play stupid. Ctrl-v makes this easy:
[ADOL] The job of government is to protect rights.[Double_R] No, that's your opinion on what you think the government should be limited to.[ADOL] It's an objective fact, since that is the only legitimate use of force and the government is differentiated from any other organization by its use of force.[Double_R] Just take a moment to stop and think about what you're saying... You're arguing that the *purpose* of government is an objective fact. Does that not give you pause to recognize how absurd you are falling just to defend your position?[ADOL] No. I have always said this, and so did the people who started the government I live under.[The founders of the United States of America] That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
Again, *if* lawmakers are going to argue that the problem facing our society and leading to unwarranted deaths is an epidemic of mental illness then they have an obligation to offer some kind of solution to improve the situation. Not sure how anyone can disagree with that
Well that's on you because I've explained three times how someone can disagree with that.
If you don't think the problem can be solved by law then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.
If you think you can prove that all problems are soluble by law until proven otherwise then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.
Let's use a diagnostic example: People dying of old age is a problem
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Which people?How do you know which killings are murder and which aren't?People decide that, I already told you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Then they'll bribe city/county councils to rezone the land and they'll build apartments and townhouses. It's the land they want. The twig houses are incidental.Single family residences should never be owned by anyone other than individuals. This forces the price of residential real-estate be based on real world individual income
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
First, answer this: Who decides what is murder and what is not?People do, government does, but anyway, even if I were to respond with "no one", which is what you are trying to fish for, same answer cannot be said about property, since there must be a system which determines who owns what, otherwise, how do you know who owns what?
How do you know which killings are murder and which aren't?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The concept of human, of murder, of life, of property all exist regardless of being named and they will always exist.Now tell us who decides who owns what, if this question isnt too complicated for you. Is it?
First, answer this: Who decides what is murder and what is not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Definitions are made by emergent consensus. Definitions do not create or destroy concepts, they just connect letters and sounds to the concept.So democratic vote defines property?
Not traditionally.
Isnt that just Communism, what we have now? Majority choosing who owns what.
Defining the letters "property" to mean something other than property doesn't mean the majority or the individual or anyone is choosing who owns what.
Just because the nazis decided to stop defining jews as human doesn't mean jews weren't human or that the concentration camps weren't murder. That is simply assertion.
The concept of human, of murder, of life, of property all exist regardless of being named and they will always exist. The fact that I can know what they are in this instant means their existence (as a concept) is eternal. No matter what other concepts may be discovered no matter what languages link to them these concepts exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I do trust that people will seek their own enrichment. It's a lot safer than trusting that they won't while giving them the opportunity (government mixing with economics).The alternative is to put your faith in pure greed.
Money will never be a vote like a vote is, because it costs money. Your vote is free.
Your vote has been bought, the cost was your public education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I steer away from talking about government size as a problem (because it isn't)I think it is fair to talk about government size when operating under the premise: Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.More government is synonymous with more power.
the degree of power is not the same as the size of government, again see an HOA.
An HOA karen selling your house from under you because you planted the wrong bush is absolute power, does that mean the HOA is too big? That the HOA is trying to do too much? Will cutting off some of the grifters from the karen president help?
No, nothing will help but to remove the degree of authority.
An HOA that landscapes everyone's property is a "big" HOA, as in it's budget would be rather larger but that doesn't mean it's a bad HOA. Negotiating for a big contract like that means the HOA has significant leverage and landscapers love it when their jobs are near each other so you could expect that the price would be better when served collectively.
The problem with small government and the problem with big government begins and ends when the opportunity becomes duty. When consumer awareness becomes producer regulation. In other words when liberty ceases to be the absolute priority.
I know that "government is too big" has been the vernacular for libertarians for a long time, and these are the reasons I think it's misleading language. It gives libertarians the false hope that if you could just cut the budget things would necessarily improve and it gives people who like the idea of society wide cooperation the impression that such a thing is incompatible with liberty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
please tell us who defines property.
Definitions are made by emergent consensus. Definitions do not create or destroy concepts, they just connect letters and sounds to the concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Your "effort to curtail it" is empowering government to corrupt the market... creating mechanism by which someone can make money by controlling government.... mmmmBig money's tireless working to corrupt government in order to crush competition is an excellent argument for abandoning any effort to curtail it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Did you know that I don't bother to respond to anything you say beyond frivolous banter because you've already admitted you didn't care if you contradicted yourself?Did you know that property, even private property, is actually defined by government? Government defines property.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did I miss anything?
Well I wouldn't limit the problem to giant corporations. Small businesses down to the individual can be part of the problem when government infringes. Like a plumber or an electrician is not a multi-billion dollar corporation but when they can charge $200/hr effective rate (and some can) because government made it illegal to fix your house without them, illegal to be one without spending more time than a doctor, and then hired them to decide what qualifications there would be, that's basically the same thing.
I steer away from talking about government size as a problem (because it isn't) as I steer away from talking about company size as a problem (because it isn't). It's what government does and what companies can get away with. The 'greed' of the individual is just as reliable as the 'greed' of a megacorp. Both will always be able to convince themselves they're just that good.
An HOA (micro government) can easily become the primary force of tyranny in your life and that is saying something given the 50% slavery rate from the various levels of government.
A giant corp that can thrive in a truly free market is probably improving a lot of people's lives and doing it with an excellence that is difficult to surpass. The same is true of a tradesman whose genuine expertise means he can do the job so much faster than a homeowner or general laborer that it's worth it to pay him rather than illegal to pay anyone else.
Incomplete socialism (and it can never be completed because communism is impossible, CCP and USSR both had oligarchies at the head of the means of production) creates oligarchies, depressions, and logistical crises.
Then socialists use oligarchies, depressions, and logistical crises as the boogeyman of "capitalism" to frighten people into accepting more socialism. An example is the shrinking markets fallacy which Adolf Hitler and his socialists used to scare many young Germans into supporting their movement.
Created:
Posted in:
Watch out, ADOL might try to eat you.
Right, I also eat fruitcakes....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
But it doesn't care how much of the population is employed and can afford food and housing
... but the people who are hungry and want a place to call home do care, that's what the "self-organizing" means.
Human society works when the most practical solution to needs/wants is production. It doesn't work when that is not the most practical solution.
What you call capitalism is the former. Everything else no matter how compromised or diluted is the later.
The fact that a few people have never and will never be productive is an edge case that can be solved by voluntary action, and the advantage of doing it voluntarily as opposed to force is that sanctioning stealing is a slippery slope suicide pill that inevitably leaves the faultless poor in the grave and heaps on all the potentially productive people right on top of them in a giant corpse pile.
As Double R would say, this is basic stuff. We can have our cake and eat it to, but people like you need to shift those wisdom levels into the green.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But it wasn't, so according to you, we can all purchase or own nuclear warheads according to the constitution.YesLike Badger said, you're a lunatic.
*looking around for a shit to give, shrugs*
You're entitled to your own opinionIt's the objective meaning of those wordsWords that were written before nuclear bombs were even thought possible.
Yep
The meaning of words is determined by their intent
I see, well I intend to always be right. That should cut down on our disagreements?
There is a reason we have constitutional scholars
There is a reason that self-described constitutional scholars vehemently disagree with each other.
that wouldn't be the case if anyone with a dictionary could properly interpret every passage in the constitution or any other legal document for that matter
I think the demands of spinning bullshit are rather high when something is simpler. Take quantum mechanics, it's not easy conceptually so every joe shmo can spin bullshit.
Now if you want to make people afraid of tomatoes, now that requires some work.
This is really basic stuff.
It's basic that it's not basic huh?
Well I'm a constitutional scholar scholar, I study the constitutional scholars to know what they actually intend (regardless of their words) and what they actually intend is to always agree with me. This is the same magic Trump recently used to say "all legal scholars wanted Roe v Wade overturned". He too must be a constitutional scholar scholar.
Now if constitutional scholars could be understood by anyone with a dictionary and a google search bar then you wouldn't need me to explain it to you would you? That's just basic.
If you want to exit clown world at some point I would suggest you start with the premise that words have meanings you can understand yourself and if the truth isn't objective then there is hardly any point talking about it. Subjectivism leads only to war.
You're arguing that the *purpose* of government is an objective fact.I said "The job of government is to protect rights" and then I clarified that I meant protecting rights is the legitimate purposeLegitimacy is by definition, subjective.
See you on the battlefield then.
And most people in their subjective opinions think that ensuring the safety of it's citizenry
At the cost of the primary function? Well then you'll have the advantage in numbers, but maybe not guns.
Nothing about this supports your assertion that the founding fathers saw protecting rights as the only legitimate purpose of government.
Doesn't need to be the only one, just the core one. A restaurant gives you a place to seat, but if seating comes at the cost of providing good food then the restaurant is no longer fulfilling its legitimate purpose.
It's also a historical fact that violating rights is not the safest on the grand scale, but if you start thinking about morality as a means to an end the abstraction breaks and the slippery slope begins.
They state very clearly that the government derives it's powers from consent of the governed and that the people have a right to alert it
I guess a full paragraph was too much for your reading comprehension level. Let's try just this:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men - Declaration of Independence
I was explicitly talking about people who appeal to mental health as a source of blame for our gun violence epidemic.
If that is what you were talking about you would have answered "of course not" to "they aren't obligated to".
So if someone is blaming mental health then the rational expectation is that they would propose something, anything, to help address the issue.
Assuming it can be solved by law in a way that doesn't create other problems (such as violating rights). Your assumption of such is integral to the false dichotomy. A bit more expanded: "all problems must have legal solutions, those legal solutions must be simultaneously available, and anyone who doubts one proposal must be aware of and propose a real solution lest their doubts be cast aside as irrelevant"
It's not a strawman, it's the only shape all your statements work together to weave. You can disavow it but that does not make it a strawman. A strawman is a false representation of the opponents argument/assertion, not any argument/assertion the opponent disavows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
An individual cant deduct all the money that is spent repairing the the home or maintaining it.
Actually they can, it just doesn't help because the law provides that capital gains tax is almost never levied against people selling one house and buying another in a "normal" way.
Although you could argue they should be able to write it off without selling their home.
You could also argue (and I have) that they shouldn't need to write it off because taxes are theft....
And you could argue property can't be owned which removes the advantage in land grabbing (which is what they're doing), and you could argue that if it wasn't for insane government interference in the free market these lunatics would never have gotten the huge piles of money they're desperately trying to convert to stable assets (which fiat currency is definitely not).
Of course students of history rightly laugh at them and those foreign governments buying up land in the USA and Canada. The land isn't yours if you can't defend it, and when shit hits the fan that land will belong to the neighborhood you better believe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@iamanabanana
I know this is going to be a bit akward, but.... I eat bananas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Was it a Canadian goose? Might have been self defense in that case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
Trump: "Millions and millions of people … are pouring into our country monthly. Where it's, I believe 21 million people."False.Politfact has not way to fact check this, the fact that they purported to proves they are not reliable.How are they not able to fact check that?
They are not omniscient, they do not have star trek sensors aimed at the border.
How do you answer a question like that?
How are you not able to know the exact number of rapes that occurred in Greenland in 948 AD? It's the lack of "how" that is the point, they have no "how" in "how do you know?".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
Trump’s wrong on abortion claimsTrump: "But the governor before, he said, ‘The baby will be born, and we will decide what to do with the baby.’"
True, just keep reading.
Trump: "Millions and millions of people … are pouring into our country monthly. Where it's, I believe 21 million people."False.
Politfact has not way to fact check this, the fact that they purported to proves they are not reliable.
Trump: "Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down. You know why? Because they've taken their criminals off the street, and they've given them to (Harris) to put into our country."Pants on Fire!There is no evidence that cou....
Politifact has no way to fact check this.
“Prove him wrong,” Taylor Hulsey, Nehl’s communications director responded.PolitiFact did not find any evidence supporting the claim. …"
It's rumor mill just like the claim that Biden has repeatedly made about "suckers and losers"
Where are they to fact check that as "Pants on Fire"?
Trump: Referring to the lawsuits he and allies filed alleging irregularities in the 2020 presidential election that he lost, "No judge looked at it. … They said we didn’t have standing. A technicality."False.The lawsuits failed for different reasons. Some were dismissed for lacking standing, which means the judge ruled that the plaintiff didn’t have a stake. Others had errors in the filings. But in many cases, judges determined that the allegations lacked proof.
So it's false even though politifact admits some were dismissed on "standing"? How come it isn't "True" or "mostly true"?
My fact check:
Poltifact a legitimate fact checker.
FALSE
Created:
Posted in:
I was perfectly clear in that.
lol
But the rhino's got a mind of its own. That's every other person that owns a gun.The very next sentence.
So now the rhino is analogous to other people and not the gun? Yes, they do have minds of their own. Cunning of you to notice. Only one way to solve having a mind of their own: They should probably report to have that mind lobotomized at once, or am I responsible for doing that seeing as I am "keeping them on my porch" by not preemptively lobotomizing them?
It's the people who rightly see guns as weapons intended to kill other humans and who use them as such that I see as the attackers.
I also see governments as attackers.
You are putting those weapons into their hands.
No, they built them.
Created:
Posted in:
Melania hid them in her Slovenian bond-villain-mountain-hideaway
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
You missed out on the analogy bigtime there
Your analogy backfired on you.
It is liberating to log off this website and go back to living among decent folk.
Who only occasionally engage in asymmetrical warfare with the protestants/English with guns and bombs. That's all behind you now. Human nature is fundamentally cured from those times and it has nothing to do with you or any of your descendants. In fact it was probably the guns that made them feel that way. Just get rid of the guns and that's world peace. We're certainly not confusing cause and effect with this one!
Well I'd call you unfit to live amongst civilised people.
Luckily you can't shoot me without a gun. Oh wait, you do approve of guns when they're being used to enforce your notion of civilization. Right....
You think nuclear bombs should be legal right?
They are legal in the united states whether they should be or not.
I would like to live in a world where governments can be controlled by more reliable means than threatening rebellion, and I think it's possible; but ironically those who want to take the guns are also very firm in opposing all attempts to civilize government.
No offence, but you're a lunatic.
I don't care enough about your opinion to take offense. Maybe if you poked a sore spot, but this isn't one.
So when 1 out a of thousand guns are used for evil it's negligent to own a gun, but when more than 1 out of a thousand black males do something evil it's not negligent to let them walk around?BTW I am just looking for you to state the blindingly obvious here, which you will be forced to do unless you walk away.I dunno how you write that dumb shit above and are still somehow so arrogant to think you're leading me down the garden path here. Negligent on whose behalf? The innocent black people?
What does "negligent on behalf" mean? Who is being negligent? The government I guess, and everyone who supports the government not acting. It works either way though, an innocent black person for not not reporting to a concentration camp.
But the rhino's got a mind of its own. That's every other person that owns a gun. Literally no difference.
You couldn't have picked a more self-defeating analogy if you tried, because the thing is that rhinos do have a mind of their own but guns do not. This is what we call in the modern USA jargon "saying the quiet part out loud". You see the gun as the attacker and not the inanimate tool that it is.
If humans were idiots who couldn't figure out how to hurt each other but for this one tool there might be more of a case, but the guns exist because people want to hurt each other and they are not idiots. If you actually succeed, like Japan, then nobody needs a gun because when all your victims are unarmed you can just stab them. Or sneak in a gun and shoot the prime minister.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Dead children are a small price to pay for the presumption of innocence.Just a daft sentence. If I lived in a town where every house was a bounce house, I'd probably want to ban knives.
If I can prevent you from living in an inflatable house you aren't free. If you can prevent me from owning a knife because YOU choose to live in a bouncy house, I'm not free.
This is fundamental. (political) liberty does not mean you can make choices that entitle you to use violence to curtail the choices of others. You live in a bouncy house, that's a risk you take. You live in a wooden house, that's a risk you take.
You can punish someone when they walk up to your house and stab it or cause it to light on fire, you can't make knives and candles illegal. Well I mean you can in the same way you can rape and murder, you just can't morally and I'd shoot you to prevent you from getting away with it.
There is no balance to be struck, no negotiation to be had. Liberty first, then with that as a constant to work around, security.
What's the difference? You might mean no harm, but you are grossly negligent. That's what you're guilty of if you need something. Innocent black people are innocent black people.
So when 1 out a of thousand guns are used for evil it's negligent to own a gun, but when more than 1 out of a thousand black males do something evil it's not negligent to let them walk around?
BTW I am just looking for you to state the blindingly obvious here, which you will be forced to do unless you walk away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So by this logic, we should all be able to run to the store and pickup a nuclear warhead... Right?By this logic the constitution should have been amended with the advent of weapons of mass destructionBut it wasn't, so according to you, we can all purchase or own nuclear warheads according to the constitution.
Yes
You're entitled to your own opinion
It's the objective meaning of those words, I often have opinions which are objectively true.
even if it prioritizes the annihilation of human civilization over using common sense to interpret words written over 200 years ago.
Priority has nothing to do with it. Reality is that which doesn't depend on what we want.
You're arguing that the *purpose* of government is an objective fact.
I said "The job of government is to protect rights" and then I clarified that I meant protecting rights is the legitimate purpose. You can create a restaurant that sells poison and you can even put that purpose on a plaque but that is not the legitimate purpose of a restaurant.
Let's review:
[DoubleR] No, that's your opinion on what you think the government should be limited to.[ADOL] It's an objective fact
So what does "it's" refer to?
It's = government should be limited to protecting rights
In practice real governments have violent and non-violent behavior. The non-violent actions don't need to be called government and don't need any special legal rights to use violence. That makes them for all intents and purposes chartered public corporations.
Definition: The unique part of government is the use of violence.
Definition: What differentiates it from organized crime is the presumption that the aim is moral use of violence.
Definition: What differentiates it from organized crime is the presumption that the aim is moral use of violence.
Objective Fact: The only legitimate use of violence is to protect rights.
Therefore 'essence' of government has only one legitimate use and that is the use it should be limited to. This is an objective fact given the definitions and premise above.
Does that not give you pause to recognize how absurd you are falling just to defend your position?
No. I have always said this, and so did the people who started the government I live under.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles sand organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Declaration of Independence
There are two foci, first, the false dichotomy you relied upon to say this:I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violenceIt's not a false dichotomy to show how people who say "look over there" don't actually care what's over there.
Context shifting red herring. You did not mean "look over there" is misdirection. You meant "If you won't do something (like pass a mental health bill) then you must concede on 'gun saftey' laws". How do I know? This:
I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violenceThey aren't obligated to.Yes they are.
You won't accept "don't pass a law" it's not an option in your mind. If it was, then they wouldn't be obligated to do anything if inaction is the lesser evil.
I enjoy watching you try to escape the pits you dig for yourself.The pits you dreamt up...
I am 80% sure you see them too, you're just stubborn/prideful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The context of the 2nd amendment is clear. It protects missile launchers MORE than a switchblade because missile launchers are MORE useful against a potentially tyrannical government.So by this logic, we should all be able to run to the store and pickup a nuclear warhead... Right?
By this logic the constitution should have been amended with the advent of weapons of mass destruction, but if you think you can throw your hands up and say "good nobody cares what it means, let's just pretend it means what we want it to mean and manufacture a consensus of lies" you got another thing coming, and that other thing is that you have and will always fail to manufacture that consensus.
States having control of part of the nuclear arsenal, that's a good idea. The only reason to object is if you plan to make war on those states or fear they will make war on you, in either case a confession of mistrust in government... ironic? I think so.
Or did I miss the part of the constitution that requires it's citizens to carry state ID?When a qualification is implied so are the minimal effective means of determining the qualification.So to be clear, you're a second amendment absolutist?
No, I'm honest. I read the words and I looked at the context in which they were written and the arguments they had about it. They very much liked the fact that when the people of the Boston angry got pissed enough they were capable of challenging a global empire using their own weapons.
The purpose was to ensure a sword of Damocles over all governments foreign and domestic. They were fine with cannons, stores of gunpowder, and even warships being in private hands. These are very dangerous things, and I have no doubt that if there was a weapon which could be widely owned and make it harder for government repression to succeed they would consider the 2nd amendment a success if it protected the right to own such a weapon.
AR-15 definitely, probably surface to air missiles too.
They would potentially feel differently about WMDs as they are defined by the fact that they target populations and not military units.
As in you believe the only qualification to be able to purchase whatever arms one wishes is that they are an American citizen.
It doesn't limit it to an American citizens explicitly. Just says "the people". If you want to argue that "the people" are the body politic you might have a case.
So ex-cons, domestic abusers, people on the FBI watchlist, people diagnosed with mental illness... Anyone can purchase a missile launcher and apparently even a nuclear warhead... Correct?
Yep, their liberty might be curtailed by due process of law but not their right to sell or buy a weapon upon opportunity.
Would have been nice if there had been amendment before the insane clowns became a major political bloc. Now it's too late, there will never be consensus on this until the left-tribe as it exists today no longer exists.
Government is an institution created by man
So are language and mathematics.
so it's purpose is necessarily decided by man
Definitions are decided by (the whims of) man, the logical implications are not.
That by definition, makes it subjective.
Then stop wasting your time on a debate site, language is by your definition subjective.
This conversation is about what should be done
What should be done is limited by ethics and law.
not what the legal hurdles are to get there.
There are two foci, first, the false dichotomy you relied upon to say this:
I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violence
The second is that even if there was a dichotomy, mental health laws (whatever the hell that means) are potentially constitutional and "gun safety laws" are (in practice) not.
pretend that the left is arguing that only security matters and 'to hell with liberty'.
I didn't pretend anything of the sort. The social contract (insofar as it exists) has decided this already: We choose liberty. If you want to choose something else you should focus your efforts on peaceful divorce, anything else will be a threat to our liberty and your security.
as if an AR15 is necessary to uphold that right.
The missiles would be better.
It doesn't matter if a universe without school shootings would be an improvementDoesn't matter? That's the entire point of why we debate policy.
I never said you can't debate. I just said there wasn't a dichotomy which required someone to come up with an alternative solution before rejecting your proposed solution.
You can bury your head in the sand but the analogy is still here.And it's still irrelevant.
It is still relevant.
Then you should take your own advice.
I enjoy watching you try to escape the pits you dig for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
From anyone else I would question your reading comprehension, but it's you so: lolNo way real person says this.
People who can't handle conditional statements and analogies should not be attempting to debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There is no qualification in the 2nd amendment.Do you believe people should be allowed to buy missile launchers?
I believe the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to possess any weapon which has practical utility against aggressors of at any scale especially state of the art government military forces.
The context of the 2nd amendment is clear. It protects missile launchers MORE than a switchblade because missile launchers are MORE useful against a potentially tyrannical government.
The only qualification to vote is citizenship.Then apparently you are against voter ID laws, correct?
No, apparently I am saying voter ID laws would be unconstitutional IF there was no such thing as an ineligible voter, but there is such a thing so they are not unconstitutional.
Or did I miss the part of the constitution that requires it's citizens to carry state ID?
When a qualification is implied so are the minimal effective means of determining the qualification.
The job of government is to protect rights.No, that's your opinion on what you think the government should be limited to.
It's an objective fact, since that is the only legitimate use of force and the government is differentiated from any other organization by its use of force.
But under a government of the people by the people and for the people, it is the people who decide whatever the role of government should be.
Under the constitution, you need 2/3 of the states to change the constitution. Until the constitution changes, the constitution determines the legal role of government.
There is no provision in the constitution which nullifies the bill of rights "if some people think there is a problem where the only solution is to violate the bill of rights".
There is no requirement in reason for a false dichotomy to confer any responsibility on anyone, e.g. "If you can't stop the shcool shootings through a mental health law, you must allow us to take away the guns".
The false dichotomy implied there is that a universe without school shootings (or equivalent) MUST exist and anything that the speaker perceives as standing in the way of that universe must yield.
It doesn't matter if a universe without school shootings would be an improvement, what matters is the morality of specific actions or inaction. Again, you can end black crime instantly by killing all the blacks. A universe without black crime being a good thing does not mean you can do anything to get there nor does it mean anyone who tells you to stop your immoral actions must come up with another way to your utopia. You're the one being evil, you need to stop.
And overwhelmingly, people believe government should be a vehicle to solve problems within our society.
They are misguided on that, but that is besides the point. If an overwhelming majority wanted to change the constitution they could. It is not happening because that is not the case. If you think a minority of sparsely populated red states are the problem may I suggest secession?
You only find it ridiculous because you understand why the presumption of innocence must be a right.The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with this conversation, that's what makes your analogy ridiculous.
You can bury your head in the sand but the analogy is still here.
You are incapable of responding to an argument without strawmanning it.
Then you should stop responding to me, I don't find your sophistry and constant context-shifting red herrings all that interesting.
Created: