Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Best.Korea
What do you think of whats written there? It seems to me that it does a good job explaining.
Quick run through:
Cons:
A change in the law would result in more younger children becoming inappropriately engaged in sexual activity.
They don't really lock up children for engaging in sexual activity with each other anyway. Immediate authorities are their inhibitors, that is parents, bosses, school administrators.
That would still be true if it was "legal" although one could argue the culture might follow the law.
There is a lack of evidence this is the case and, indeed, much evidence suggesting that the existing law has no effect on the sexual behaviour of young people.
I agree, they know they are safe; and it's not a good thing for de facto law and de jure law to be different.
The existing law gives young people, especially girls, who do not want to engage in sexual activity a powerful reason for refusing to consent. Although this reason is often cited, there is not even anecdotal evidence to suggest it is valid. It is indeed difficult to imagine a girl saying to her boyfriend that she does not wish to have sex with him because it is against the law. She might not wish to have sex with him, but she wouldn't want him to laugh at her either.
Decent counter-argument but the more core one would be simple: She has a right to refuse anyway, no boyfriend worth having would be better off with a lie rather than the true reason. The government most certainly should not be in the business of providing excuses (at the cost of victims) because shy people won't be honest.
Focus group discussions with 11–16 year-olds reveal that they are generally opposed to a change in the law on this matter.9 This is indeed the case, but, as indicated above, there is a marked disparity between the behaviour of young people and their views on the existing law.
It wouldn't matter if they were against it and weren't hypocrites in their opposition. Most people don't want to engage in homosexual behavior but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Young people aged 14 years are not physically mature enough to engage in full sexual activity. The median age of menarche in English and Welsh girls born between 1982 and 1986 was 12 years and 11 months.10 Thus, the great majority of girls of 14 years are indeed sufficiently physically mature to engage in full sexual activity.
History says they can do it physically, this was never a strong argument because our bodies are covered with sensors which tell us when we're doing something dangerous (pain).
Young people aged 14 years are not cognitively mature enough to evaluate the risks of engaging in sexual activity. There is ample evidence that 14-year-olds are as capable of analysing the risks and benefits of different interventions in complex medical situations as are 21-year-olds.11
Capable surely, but the reason they do stupid things more than adults is not because they are incapable of reasoning but because they don't have the wisdom (whether it comes from brain development or life experience) to know when to use it.
Of course many adults never gain sufficient wisdom, and we watch them destroy themselves all the time; but it follows that while a guardian has restrictive authority they ought to have the privilege of preventing self-destructive behavior.
In particular, he cites his own work13 pointing to age differences in sensation-seeking and impulsivity.
Basically what I said.
The problem with his argument is that the greatest reduction in impulsivity occurs between adults aged 22–25 and those aged 26–30 years. Is it really suggested that sexual consent should be invalid up to the age of 26 years?
I think that impulsivity as a proxy for what I am calling "wisdom" seems to be a good proxy and it does show spikes (on average) for those ages. Many team leaders in many fields know this explicitly or implicitly.
Identifying a line in the sand does mean there is an imperfections in the logic. The rationally derived is the opposite of the arbitrary... but just because you know a particular line in the sand can't be rational doesn't mean you know where it should be.
For example, McCartt et al,15 studying traffic accidents among young people, found that ‘of the studies that attempted to quantify the relative importance of age and experience factors, most found a more powerful effect from length of licensure’.
That study result doesn't surprise me in the least, I am eminently skeptical of the high level of quackery in theoretical neuroscience and the general aversion in behavioral psychology to accept the most obvious explanation in open war with Occam's razor.
This is to some degree true of the mindset and behavior of people engaging in sex, marriage, and family rearing. History is full of people doing it at 16 and executing it (as far as we can tell) well.
To a great degree, young adults are as immature and ignorant as society allows them to be. A society which places emphasis on wisdom (and virtue in general), has no unhealthy minor culture as created by public schools, and most importantly makes impulsive (brash) and irrational behavior taboo will produce 16 year olds who are more ready to engage in sex than modern society's 22 year olds.... or at least that is the way it seems when you read letters written by 16 year olds from such societies in history.
Pros:
Lowering the age of sexual consent would result in the decriminalisation of just under one-third of the adolescent population. Most such law-breakers are not currently prosecuted, but it cannot be right that their freely given sexual consent is deemed illegal.
In all cases the law should be enforced. If the result of the law being enforced is injustice, remove the law, not the enforcement. This is prerequisite honesty in the proposition of civil life.
The numbers of young people whose sexual activity results in sexually transmitted infections is substantial.16 The number of pregnancies in 15–17-year-olds, although it is reducing, remains substantial.17 Further, the sexual experience of many young people, particularly girls, is distressing, and a substantial number of girls regret their first full sexual experience.18 Lowering the age of sexual consent would make it distinctly easier for appropriate sex education to be provided to children and young people to enable them to make wiser decisions. It would also make it easier to provide sexual health services to people of this age without the fear of conniving in illegal activity.
This doesn't follow. It is so rarely enforced that I don't think any adolescents would balk at seeking medical help given doctor patient confidentiality. Schools DO have sex education where they all but assume everyone is going to "break the law" and have sex rather than remain abstinent.
Further, the sexual experience of many young people, particularly girls, is distressing, and a substantial number of girls regret their first full sexual experience.
Do they regret it because it is illegal or because they know it's unwise and would bring condemnation from their guardians?
The voting age in England and Wales is currently 18 years, while in Scotland it is 16 years. The voting age should surely be reduced to 16 years in England and Wales, with an expectation of a further reduction in due course.
Or perhaps it should be raised to 30 years, if the justification is filtering out the impulsive youth. Voters have the power to murder and steal in a democracy, that's as or more dangerous than consensual sex.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thread title is misleading, this is a document in a library (literally uses the word library) not an endorsement.
Platform vs publisher, or I suppose we could tie ourselves in knots about that one for a few more decades.
You may as well say the US government endorses national socialism if they have mein kampf in a public library.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Don't let facts get in the way of political propaganda, the last decade has proven doing such a thing just weakens you.
However if we must pretend we are in a rational society I would like to point out that you cannot contract a bacterial infection from food that is prepared by being boiled for half an hour (or more).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
or gets his media from one place.
There is no media stupid enough to make a person think that police officers are physically incapable of breaking the law or enforcing the law incorrectly, or to be more precise no media can make a person that stupid.
This is intentional trolling/sock-puppetry or he has a mental disability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
Alright, but still you have got to see that Mall is not a serious person. Probably, as I said a sock puppet; potentially run by an algorithm.I’m gonna be honest, I did not see that you responded to me. I thought you were the one who wasn’t responding. Lol.
Unless unjust discrimination on so called race is legal.
This is a known joke: https://www.tiktok.com/@kimtoonz_7/video/7132891385568431365?lang=en
People who don't know it's a joke have fundamental conceptual dysfunction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
Why do you respond to the controlled opposition sock puppet more than anyone else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what I'm hearing is "Kamala Harris suggests we use bleach as dressing". <yelling to minion> Somebody setup five or six "fact check" shell websites to confirm that one! </yelling to minion>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As if that's the important part as opposed to being a defamation and baseless conspiracy theory factory.“The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-leaning organization...You don't say....
"The Third German Reich, a highway constructing organization..."
Created:
Posted in:
You should go find the Melania fetish site, and if one doesn't exist; you should start it. You would be much happier than here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The deep state created the media storm. Then the left-tribe (as always) refused to talk about anything else, going so far as to say things like "it isn't political" (I just want to radically change public policy because of it).I dont know why both sides focus on the one example that favors neither side. Is it just challenge?
They did not have a great number of cases to work with. Most police brutality does not result in death (or involve death at all), and brutality is only a small subset of police abuses. Furthermore they had no use for examples where the police officer was a "minority" or the victim wasn't enough of a "minority".
They had a time limit, it was an election year and people would not riot in winter (as hard), plus the lockdowns had created a powder keg that would become less potent with time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
NoIs this because I am using smartphone?
Probably the service level was reduced by owner to save money and an overly zealous timeout on host response.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
1. If you are capable of lowering prices for Americans, why haven’t you done it in the 3½ years you have been in office?
Biden that tottering old white man! HE DONE IT!
2. You say housing affordability would be a “Day One priority” if you were elected. Why is it not a priority now? Housing isn’t affordable for the average American in 99 percent of the nation.
Biden, WHITE MALE, DUH
3. You co-sponsored Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal? Do you still support these multi-trillion-dollar takeovers of the American economy?
Of course
4. You talk a lot about "freedom." What about the freedoms of Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, and Jocelyn Nungaray? These women were killed by illegal immigrants who were let into the country under your watch.
I have a plan! What if we built a wall? There is great significance to the passage of people when you consider a wall that is placed between people and their significant passages.
5. President Trump didn't need a "border bill" to secure the border. Why did you support executive actions like stopping construction of the border wall and halting deportations that intentionally unsecured the border?
We can't build a wall before I have the idea to build a wall, did you fall out of a coconut tree recently?
6. Trump was the first president in decades to start no new wars. Under your watch, wars are popping up in Europe and the Middle East. Why is that?
Racism
7. Why did you conceal Joe Biden's cognitive decline from the American people?
We thought we could get away with it. At least our voters still trust us, one of the great significances to the passage of time is that our goldfish brained base will never form opinions based on information more than one news cycle ago.
8. You supported the Defund the Police movement and have said more that police doesn’t mean more safety. Why do you want fewer police officers?
Well if I can't lock up black people for victimless drug crimes such as those I have admitted to comitting and use them for slave labor what is even the point of arresting anyone?
9. You’ve called for getting rid of cash bail and your campaign hasn’t backed away from it. Why do you still support such a radical view?
I put people in prison, I don't let them out of prison? [cackle]
10. You have sent anonymous aides out to claim you've abandoned the radically liberal positions that you've held for decades. Do you think lying to the American people is the best strategy?
Controlling the media and rigging the election with a shadow campaign is the best strategy. That's why lying works, the 'press' don't ever point it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There was plenty of discussion on this topic for me to learn that you are not getting anywhere.
There were more threads than just that, that isn't even one of the long ones.
This one started with babbitt but quickly turned into another george floyd one: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7985-maga-martyr?page=1
Here are some highlights
me citing a study on fentanyl death and using some of the more mystical forms of math (division) https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7985/posts/345754
As long as one side of debate has excuse like drugs to blame it for death, its pointless.
pointless because there was no point to make. You eat poison and then die in the way the poison kills you of course it's going to create reasonable doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
That's a video of a man dying of a drug overdose while another person happens to be kneeling on his upper spinal column.Seems a little improbable that he died of an OD at the exact moment when he appeared to be getting suffocated, but I’ll hear you out.
It is even more 'improbable' that 'physical suffocation' caused Floyd to have trouble breathing before it began.
He wasn't suffocated. You can't suffocate someone that way. You maybe can cause a blood clot if it lasts for long enough. There was no blood clot, no bruising. If he appeared to be suffocated to you it is because you don't understand human anatomy. Luckily you own a specimen to inspect. I invite you to lay on the ground and have someone try to suffocate you by applying pressure to your upper back, neck, or skull. It may be uncomfortable, unbearably so, but it will not close your windpipe.
Force on the rib cage would impede breathing but the weight would need to be very large and partial lung expansion into the abdominal cavity would still be possible; people have had small horses fall on them and still been able to breathe enough to stay alive.
That is besides the point however because that is not what the video shows nor was chauvin heavy enough even if he was sitting on the rib-cage.
The spinal column is firmly attached to the rib cage and skull and it is all but impossible to compress the windpipe with dorsal force against a flat surface. Not without breaking bones, and if you break the vertebrae or ribs that's kind of the main issue.Can I get a source for this? Not that I don’t believe you, but I think it’s understandable that I want to hear this from a doctor or something.
Whether or not it's understandable you will have to think about it yourself if you wish to debate it, or do the experiment. I have debated this before (on this site) and found some study which noted what I just stated. The opposition in that thread just ignored it because they had their own "expert" (not a study).
Let's save me some time searching through my post history, are you going to refuse to look at the geometry yourself or do the experiment in favor of picking the "expert" who confirms your bias?
Oh yes you do, Floyd asked to get out of the car and to be put on the street and any honest journalist would have watched the full array of recordings before making a mini documentary. Therefore we can conclude that either this narrator isn't a journalist or isn't honest.I wasn’t able to find a good source for the full video, can you point me to one?
Not full but fuller:
at 3:48 he says he's claustrophobic (and thus doesn't want to be in the car)
BTW if he seems like he's having a meltdown and randomly losing his footing it's because he swallowed the dangerous dose of drugs while in the other car (civilian car).
6:30 "I'll get on the ground, anything"
I am 90% sure if they had left him in the back seat of the cruiser that is where he would have died and then the lying propagandists would have said the police murdered him by causing a panic attack (claustrophobia).
Let's review, this troll thread is about "police brutality", and out of all the very real abuses of policing in America we're talking about a man who took a lethal dose of drugs before refusing the cushioned back seat of a production SUV. That is not an example of "brutality".
Watching anyone die is not a nice thing, but he really did do this to himself. When he said "I can't breathe, I took too many drugs" that is the damn truth and he needed to A) not take too many drugs or B) say he took too many drugs before it's too late so people can get medical support.
I think the point you’re trying to make is about the drugs he had in his system at the time.
At concentrations that have killed people before. Of the type of drugs that produce exactly the symptoms he showed.
While the report does list the drugs he was on, and his preexisting heart condition, it actually comes to the conclusion that it was because of the police officer
nano-grams per milliliters is science. An assertion unsupported by observations is not, being in the same document as reported observations does not change that.
Floyd’s heart condition did probably contribute some to his death because it was larger than normal and thus needed more oxygen
because large hearts need more oxygen? That's a bizzare and irrelevant premise. The human body needs oxygen you don't need to make up reasons. His heart stopped because he took a lethal dose of drugs and if were arguing about whether it would have stopped 30 seconds later without slight pressure on his rib cage, or his recent covid, or his bad heart health in general we're clearly far outside of the realm of clear police brutality.
If this is the best example or even in the top 100 best examples of "police brutality" then a reasonable person must conclude there isn't a problem.
However the medical examiner testified that the biggest cause of death was the police officer leaning on his neck.
I'll stick with the science, you should too; and if you're claiming that this neck kneeling thing can only known to be dangerous after careful study by "experts" then it's hardly a candidate for "brutality". If someone is allergic to broccoli and nobody tells the chef that doesn't mean the chef is brutal or that there is a systematic problem with "chef brutality".
Unless you're claiming the officers are trained to be "brutal" there is no case here.
These cops were railroaded, and they need to be released and compensated. Again, terrible example of "police brutality", a counter example really. "Look at how out of control the perception of police brutality is, they're sending people to prison for murder because they arrested someone who is overdosing".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
That's a video of a man dying of a drug overdose while another person happens to be kneeling on his upper spinal column. The spinal column is firmly attached to the rib cage and skull and it is all but impossible to compress the windpipe with dorsal force against a flat surface. Not without breaking bones, and if you break the vertebrae or ribs that's kind of the main issue.
"Chauvin pulls him to the street, we don't know why"
Oh yes you do, Floyd asked to get out of the car and to be put on the street and any honest journalist would have watched the full array of recordings before making a mini documentary. Therefore we can conclude that either this narrator isn't a journalist or isn't honest. Now Moozer, I have said you're the only left-triber who even tries. Don't make me regret the benefit of the doubt, you can watch the whole recording and to show me that you are a person who is interested in the truth I want you to admit that this "journalist" is absolutely wrong when she said "we don't know why".
Now you explain please:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
George Floyd died from a speed ball combined with a weak heart.George Floyd
You're only making the sock puppet's point by using a fake story.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Don't worry sir, we're going to use this arm for your own good. Everyone has to pay their fair share and you wouldn't even have an arm without society.
Created:
-->
@jglover200
Control can mean different things in this context. Controlling emotions could mean not showing them or acting upon them, but that is quite different from deleting them, and if they are there to hide then they are still there.If you cannot control your emotions
Sexual attraction is deeper than emotions. A disciplined mind can be aware of the values and beliefs that cause emotions, but the subconscious equivalent of emotions may be based on values and beliefs not accessible to the conscious mind or consistent with each other or reality.
I'm not a Freudian BTW, the quackery of Freud was not pointing this out, it was his failed hypotheses about them not least of which is the primacy of sexuality in the subconscious.
Created:
Posted in:
This one is pretty straight forward:
Secretary of state modifies the duties of election officials to verify that a reported vote total is complete and accurate to "rubber stamp or suffer greatly, 'deMooCracy' does not wait for the law".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well that's the thing, it won't keep them in power. You don't even need to appeal to abstract ethics, this simply won't work there isn't a cultural framework in the USA to allow for the tolerance for rule by arbitrary power (which is what government unconstrained by law is).
They're just stupid (or thinking very short term), and the single sentence that is the crux and admission is something like "I don't care about rule of law because there will never be another civil war".
If they don't "let my people go" there will be another civil war, the conditions are obvious; people (tens of millions) have no trust left and they were taught that the government exists to serve them. There is no monarchy or religion that will imbue the government(s) of the USA with reverence and authority. Respect for authority in this country is simply a delayed reflection of trust in government expressed through peer pressure and social momentum.
The fact that their tiny imaginations are incapable of visualizing that war given that it isn't a carbon copy of one particular war in history called "the American civil war" does not mean it won't happen.
I can imagine it and it looks a lot more like mutually assured destruction than the first American civil war. It certainly doesn't take more than 5% of the population in any given region ready to fight and destroy to cripple this civilization (via logistical collapse).
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Multiple people on this site have repeatedly and absurdly claimed that since it is an "adjudicated fact" that Donald Trump raped E Jean Carroll, publicly denying that he raped her is defamation (or was it calling her a liar is defamation, as if there was a difference).
I will go search through the site for links to these instances if there is honest doubt from someone who hasn't burned up the benefit of the doubt long ago.
Some of the top reasons this is absurd:
1.) The right to confront your accusers is an ancient one in English common law, this right necessarily requires that the claims and credibility of your accusers may be attacked. Much as "freedom of the press" has been appropriately interpreted extremely broadly as a third rail (for it is a slippery slope to start curbing speech) this right has always been and ought to continue to be given a massive radius of avoidance.
2.) The right to free speech has always been interpreted to include matters of public interest and accusations of felonies are matters of public interest no matter who is accused. That is why criminal court cases are matters of public record. Within this broad protection of speech where any man or woman has the right to call anyone accusing or being accused of or claiming to have witnessed a criminal matter 'a liar' is the stacked right of the accused to defend him or herself.
Neither of these two fundamental rights are nullified by the decisions of judges, juries, presidential orders, congressional decrees or anything else. Never once has it been suggested that since a man or woman was convicted (much less found liable) for a crime that they could no longer protest their innocence under the 1st and 5th amendments (the two rights mentioned above).
Furthermore there are numerous famous examples of people maintaining their innocence to the point of publishing books from prison making their case to the public. If there was any way in hell an honest person could misconstrue the constitution, English common law, or defamation law in such a convoluted manner as to suggest such maintenance is itself defamation against witnesses and victims then we would have examples somewhere in the last 200 years of legal history.
3.) The jury was given a piece of paper which had a "rape" checkbox and they did not check it. Being hyper-technical about defamation and then hand-waiving when it comes to the definition of rape is equivocation pure and simple. It's basically saying "I don't care what the state of New York calls rape, but New York and New York juries have absolute authority over what defines defamation."
The fact that anyone could seriously make and double down on these claims make it obvious to me why we're heading for a civil war, you simply can't live in the same civilization with such people and the difference between "evil" and "ignorant" (if there is one) doesn't alleviate the situation.
When you're right you will often find confirmation in a multitude of consistencies and for the same reason when you're wrong you will often have a long and ever growing list of absurd implications and double standards facing you.
I was reminded of all this when I was listening to this video https://youtu.be/xfr3l-fUhq4?t=19 and heard the phrase "adjudicated illegal"
Yes, that did happen. A court process concluded that Jack Smith is for all intents and purposes a private citizen pretending to be a prosecutor.
Now if the fools who made the claims detailed above were consistent (lacked double standards) they would have to conclude not only that Jack Smith could not claim he was a prosecutor after that, but that if he did so it would be the federal crime of impersonating an officer of the united states. After all we can assume malicious dishonesty if an adjudicated fact is contradicted right?
You want to live in a world where it's (practically) illegal to contradict a judge/jury? Have fun, but you can start by sending Jack Smith to prison for three years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's hard to distinguish the bots from humans with TDS.
A profound point.
Created:
Posted in:
I really love it when a left triber starts with the class snobbery. That's the smell of victory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The AI is way off base on this one (no surprise). This is one of those issues which they confuse on purpose. The inflation rate has stabilized because the fed "raised the interest rate" which is their lie-speak for deleting dollars.
It's still inflating, but not as fast; because they are still printing money, just not as fast. It will ALWAYS be proportional to the printing money because that is what it is defined as being. A reminder: The fed can print money and "loan" it to the government or it can print money and "loan" it to the private sector. BOTH cause inflation.
Deficit spending necessarily causes inflation because the government necessarily prints monopoly money as "debt". (ok it's also possible that other nations and private investors buy bonds but let's be realistic here)
The difference between a private bank "borrowing" from the fed and the government "borrowing" is that nobody ever tells the government "you can't just keep taking out more debt to pay the interest on the debt you hold, that's a pyramid scheme".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If we ever know the winners of swing state votes...
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Is the pain of others something that can exist if other's had no life?No, but thanks for making another argument against life. Life means pain, dying and disappointment. More for some.
That is not an argument against life, those things are only negative because they are part of a motivator system designed to keep you alive and kicking.
If health was not good then pain wouldn't be needed. If achieving values was not good, then disappointment would not be needed.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Is the pain of others something that can exist if other's had no life?Living by causing pain to others is worse than death.
Created:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Life is an end in itself, life vs death is the context which creates the concept of good and evil. To live is good. To cease living is evil.
Do not put the cart before the horse. As there can be no such thing as "before time" there can be no such thing as "good more fundamental than life".
If a man searches for something deeper he will find nothing and be tempted to manufacture. If he can say that it is better for a pebble in the sky to have moss clinging to it than for there to be no moss he can find value in his life. If he cannot, then nothing will 'cure' him, not even imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Who is the enemy
Apparently brain worms.
What are their orders, tactically what do they do? What enemy force do they engage?
I have answers, but I don't see why I would possibly waste them for a defaming frothing-mouth lunatic who has no genuine interest in discussing tactics, strategy, or the origin of conflicts (ethics, which is much more important to debate) such as yourself.
but a "civil war" requires some kind of clearly defined demarcation between enemies
What a moron.
Created:
Posted in:
god the left-tribers on this site are insufferable. Moozer is the only one who even tries.
Created:
FLWR is going to be all over this.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is disturbing, it appears being exposed to constant TDS rants has driven GP into an a form of insanity where he just repeats the latest rant he has been exposed to like a parrot.... oh.... I see. It was always going to be this way *moon gun meme*.
He isn't the parrot the clownworld needs, but he is the parrot the clownworld deserves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Oh, you're a bot. Silly me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Showing how extreme his opponents are, not how extreme he is.Over the course of five decades, Donald Trump has been accused of sexual assault, tax evasion, money laundering, non-payment of employees, and the defrauding of tenants, customers, contractors, investors, bankers, and charities. Also filed 6 bankruptcies.Trump filed 7 corporate bankruptcies, a failed airline, a failed magazine, a failed scam university, three failed casinos, a failed pandemic response, the worst jobs record of any U.S. president, two impeachments, and 34 criminal convictions, Trump was fined 464 million dollars for business fraud and is in court for paying a porn star Stormy Daniels hush money.
I am aware of the cover stories for the deep state attacks.
If he was a real criminal and there really was a justice system in New York he would have been charged with all these supposed crimes (and you included plenty of things that aren't crimes true or not) at the time he supposedly committed them. Trouble is (and this is easy to show), no sane person (not even a police report) thought the things he did were crimes (because they weren't).
Before opposing the deep state: everything is fine, laughing with oprah
After opposing the deep state: calling someone who accused you of a heinous crime a liar is a crime (but only for you)
That's extreme, or to use precisely the right word: lawless
If it had to be a sentence: Lawless insanity which isn't fooling nearly enough people to avoid starting a civil war over it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
There is no fair share.
Trump cheats on his tax filings. He is a good example.
I don't think you're going to be able to become the top TDS patient here. We have people who hallucinate; but never give up on your dreams.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I guess technically this is true since both are actually moderates. Granted anti establishment moderates so villainized by the billionaires who run the media but moderates none the less.Trump suffers from dementia. RFK had his brains eaten by worms.
... and yet it was the millions of the democrat party's base that believed whatever lie was fed to them including the lie that Joeseph Biden was mentally fit and would be running for reelection.
Apparently only those with dementia and brain worms can predict the future more accurately than the propaganda media.
How is Trump a moderate? Trump has been impeached twice, indicted 4 times with 91 felony counts.
Showing how extreme his opponents are, not how extreme he is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Cant it? I bet Einstein could explain it simply if he was still alive.
What is simple to some is not simple to others, but no one who understands a valid concept thinks themselves incapable of explaining it. In all cases if someone refuses to explain (because you are too ignorant in their opinion, not because of lack of time) they are ignorant or dishonest.
The more field specific jargon they put into their abstract the more likely the publication is to be bullshit written solely to keep someone's sad career going rather than novel information or analysis of any use.
The reason nobody knows how these climate models work is because they keep them secret. It's a black box computer simulation that they claim is based on a few premises they will gloss over when asked (and they rarely take questions).
Science (like voting software) is not something that can be legitimately kept secret. Anyone who is not preemptively sharing all data, experimental procedures, and detailed analysis (with all work shown) is not doing science and if they withhold these intentionally they are not scientists.
Created:
Posted in:
There are certain parts that definitely get a huge thumbs up from me:
When he describes how the regulatory agencies, specifically FDA and food related are staffed by people from giant food processor corporations and how this is not a good thing my libertarian juices flowed swiftly.
Let me be more specific about my thoughts on this. I know enough about biology to know what it is that "scientists" know and don't know. They have no way to predict chemical reaction chains of enormously complex molecules that could go on for a hundred transformations. It is physically impossible (at this time) to actually have a controlled experiment for biological effect. There are too many factors that cannot be ruled out. It's like weather models but ten times worse. Every different thing someone eats, every different chemical they are exposed to, every tiny difference in gene expression, every virus, every persistent bacteria THEY ARE ALL POTENTIAL FACTORS!
Since I understand this my analysis of specific medical/biological claims have been somewhat confusing for people who don't understand. I trust the experimental data when it says a correlation IS found. You take aspirin, your blood pressure goes down (or something). You take penicillin the bacteria die and the white blood cell count goes down. That sort of thing. The factors are all still there but correlation can be established simply by looking at two (or some finite) number of objectively measurable quantities.
However whenever someone makes a claim about what could not be (or is not) happening I become hyper suspicious. Hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin does not help covid for example. How do you know? What variables did you control for? Did you control for them all (no you didn't I promise).
It is an excellent example of where the asymmetrical chasm between positive burden of proof vs negative can be vast.
Bringing us to the method by which our government determines chemicals are safe. Basically they can't. They can eliminate the direct and simple correlations but that's it. In ancient China they used to drink mercury because they thought it would help. It doesn't, it hurts, but it hurts in such a delayed and conditional manner that they could not see the correlation. The same with Roman lead plumbing.
What we do when we test an artificial preservative or pesticide is more informed but ultimately we are vulnerable in the same way. RFK's point about the explosion of chronic illness cannot be brushed away. There are alternative hypotheses, the simplest of which is that we are subject to retroviruses which have wrecked our metabolic control systems combined with 'doctors' manufacturing their own job security by diagnosing everyone with subjective diseases.
It does need to be explained though and the hypothesis that there is some set of those artificial chemicals we have been using that is causing this is plausible not withstanding those (as I described) far from conclusive negative studies.
Bringing it back home, if there is anyone to mistrust on the matter it is the clearly easily and fully corrupted federal bureaucracy. It would be a miracle if the DOJ, EPA, CDC, and so many others are full of lying incompetent crooks (swamp monsters), but the food regulatory agencies were magically pure and above reproach.
A moral leader can control corruption for a time, but the stable long term solution is a system that motivates accuracy through self-interest, this is often best accomplished by an adversarial system, truth is found in the debate.
BTW this is what a candidate talking about policy looks like. It's not "democracy" that is choosing Harris over him.
Created:
Sounds like the new plan is the old plan :/
Created:
-->
@Barney
I am not impressed by your strategy of posting an irrelevant link and then call foul when the absurdity of the best-guess relevance is illustrated in a conditional.
[ADOL] If you are claiming...
I am not sure what satisfaction you get out of this silliness but it is not mutual. Rest assured there will be no further guesswork to fill in what you have failed to say. You may answer my two questions time and inclination permitting:
I make that guarantee, because that’s what crusty old white men in positions of power have done....and since Trump didn't run an ad to reinstate the death penalty for those crusty old white men who were convicted of gangrape and assault that left the person in a comma for two weeks that proves it huh?What if those cases were not brought to public attention? Doesn't that prove the "racism" of the media and not Trump?
Created:
-->
@Barney
I make that guarantee, because that’s what crusty old white men in positions of power have done....and since Trump didn't run an ad to reinstate the death penalty for those crusty old white men who were convicted of gangrape and assault that left the person in a comma for two weeks that proves it huh?What if those cases were not brought to public attention? Doesn't that prove the "racism" of the media and not Trump?
What relevance does this link have to my two questions?
The central park 5 case was in 1989. This document is younger than 2015. If you are claiming that Trump must have read this document and known that he should have advocated for the death penalty much sooner (so as to kill more whites for rape) that would have been physically impossible as it would require prophecy.
Furthermore the publication doesn't give any example of a white gang rape for which Trump could get angry over. Surely it must happen, but if the media doesn't run a circus around it then you certainly can't infer anything about people getting angry in one case vs another.
If I tell you that Joe is a rapist and say nothing about Bob (who was also accused) that doesn't mean you hate Joe because you get angry at Joe and not Bob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
The list goes on.
It's a fake list, a list full of fake demerits. That's why it's not hurting his popularity.
What did he do to create such loyal supporters?
Look at your list again. That is why he has such strong support. Free people will instinctively (or intuitively ask Wylted) defend a man who resisting a gag, doing it through subversion of the institutions of media and law just makes them more angry. It makes me very angry and there is hardly a person who you could find to victimize in this way that would not illicit the same righteous anger in me.
Created:
Posted in:
At least GP finds a modern chatbot. FLRW's chatbot is from like ten years ago and can't even stay on topic.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, they're doing it openly like Hitler saying he wants to solve the jewish problem and yet somehow everyone else but them is to be suspected of harboring a secret racism.Joy Reid has more than a dozen instances of publicly attributing character to skin color, so it's not hard to figure out if she is objectively a racist or not. Joe Biden has attributed many times a person's skin color to be a positive attribute of their character.
Occam's razor (which is not Double R's magical personal sword) would ask us to question which requires fewer assumptions:
A) that the people constantly making inferences, condemnations, and heaping praise on the basis of race are racists
B) or that they are not and instead the people who insist on colorblindness (the opposite of inferences, condemnations, and praise based on race) are the real racists
Although Trump was pretty left with his beliefs back then
Or there aren't really such things as "left" beliefs now or then. There are the corrupt, the gullible, and a few true idealists (like myself and SJWs) whom they try to manipulate by using ethical language they know we will respond to.
Perhaps Trump was just paying the bribes that all powerful people do to the system which attacks people who don't play ball. They certainly didn't seem to have a problem with Trump (supposedly) being a psycho racists misogynist rapist idiot back then did they?
Created:
-->
@Barney
I make that guarantee, because that’s what crusty old white men in positions of power have done.
...and since Trump didn't run an ad to reinstate the death penalty for those crusty old white men who were convicted of gangrape and assault that left the person in a comma for two weeks that proves it huh?
What if those cases were not brought to public attention? Doesn't that prove the "racism" of the media and not Trump?
Created:
-->
@badger
Just because you don't see the cost, doesn't mean it was cheap.It was cheap. We pay a tenth of the price for insulin that you do. We spend half of what you do on healthcare in general whilst having better outcomes. We're buying our drugs from the same companies that you are.
So why can't our benevolent government get those prices and resell the insulin directly to the people? Why do they need to threaten the companies if they sell above this 1/10th price?
It's pretty obvious what's happening here. People in need of insulin are desperate and will pay.
People in need of food are desperate and will pay, but the food production chain is hyper competitive with small profit margins all around. Why?
Spoils your libertarian dream.
Your misunderstanding is representative of what is spoiling the libertarian dream, that is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You realize that only a fool would believe you post your true convictions after all you've typed. Regardless I will comment.
Have you noticed that despite the fact that government taxes entire society, not all parts of society benefit equally.
It's not a zero sum game. Just because something is stolen doesn't mean someone else gets an equal benefit.
You can steal someone's sandwich and throw it into a fire. That's what government does because on the scale of nations when you pay people to do useless things (with stolen money) then the average production efficiency goes down and this means less buying power.
Big cities get traffic lights and traffic regulators, while small areas often dont even get them at all.
Who cares. "disproportionality effect" is the template of the clueless SJW.
Justice is neither equal opportunity nor equal outcome, it is the violation of consent punished.
Created:
-->
@badger
Everywhere else in the world its cheap and plentiful because our governments negotiate on our behalf.
Just because you don't see the cost, doesn't mean it was cheap. If it's cheaper elsewhere that governments negotiate that is only because of less corruption.
So long as it is a government-monopoly negotiation it will inevitably become a government-monopoly collusion. The solution is rational self-interest, that removes the practicality of corruption and motivates efficiency.
The lions aren't let to pick off the weakest of the herd.
The herd could take care of itself if were allowed, as it is for food (and even there attacks are being made). When the government makes it impossible to farm without bribing the government, then government will be "negotiating" the price of food whether that is the official narrative or not.
The US federal government IS negotiating the price of insulin by regulating who can produce it and what hoops and rain dance they need to go through, that's why it's so expensive; the government bureaucracy only allows organizations that bribe them to produce. Note that bribery vs being agent is just a matter of perspective, if the pharma oligopoly has candidates in their pocket, candidates who will miraculously do very well in the stock market, before they are even 'elected' that is not morally or practically different from bribery.
Created: