Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Greyparrot
Artificial booms and busts by unelected oligarchs are worse than grassroot booms and busts.
It's also impossible to honestly say there was a controlled experiment which proved that there are busts and booms in a free and open society (with a free market).
The Federal reserve was created to "solve" the supposedly endemic (natural) problem of bank runs as evidenced by the 1907 panic.
However that panic was caused by the US government's own investments. Again (and this is the most common pattern in the history of government, it is more prevalent than coups, propaganda, or war) the solution to the problem they created is worse than the problem itself. Geometric cascade of waste and failure.
The Bank Panic of 1907 was a short-lived banking and financial crisis in the U.S. that occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century.It resulted from the collapse of highly-leveraged speculative investments propagated by easy money policies pursued by the U.S. Treasury in the preceding years.
Notice at the start of the self-inflicted wounds the difference in power and interests:
- Without a government central bank to fall back on, U.S. financial markets were bailed out from the crisis by personal funds, guarantees, and top financiers and investors, including J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller.
Those filthy capitalists did the thing that supposedly we need government to do (fix problems created by the government).... and what's more they did it with their own money instead of stolen money.
A perfect example of why appeasement is a bad strategy with people who have no idea that they're in the wrong (the socialists).
So in conclusion, there may not be natural depressions. Of course businesses and stocks will rise and fall, and will the personal fortunes of individuals and families in direct proportion to how much they risked and how correct they were (about economic matters). Yet it's very possible that in a truly free society with a truly free market those who have not risked their precious assets have nothing to fear from the speculative investments of others. It may also be that what we think of as the stock market today is a gambling ring created by the artificial government punishment of saving, the artificial promotion of diversified portfolios, and the uncertainty created by constantly shifting government regulations.
It's possible that a free economy's stock market is a fairly boring place where careful investments are made by people who know what they're investing in any why it's a good idea. That employees invest primarily in their own company for which they have respect and loyalty and work diligently to power to success, ironically such behavior must inevitably lead to something more of the holy grail of communism "worker ownership of the means of production".
It was more like that before the birth of the deep state which I would peg around the turn of the century when corrupt and devious men bent on world domination and personal enrichment decided that a nation's currency was just another weapon.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Expertise is fluid. At this time IWRA identifies krugman as an expert.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Biden had a policy that led to capping the cost of insulin at $35 dollars a month.Venezuela tried price caps on goods with disasterous results. It is a bad thing and with Kamala posting ads saying she would force grocers to lower prices, we are not headed down a good path
It's also a classic example of "Create the problem, then use the problem as an excuse to create a worse problem"
Government made expensive medicine by creating a regulatory/market environment where oligopolies easily form and ossify. They made expensive education, expensive trains, expensive steel, expensive housing. Pretty much anything that is too expensive, they did it.... and if it's a cheap import they probably caused that too since importing should be irrational when the country can produce the good without the transport costs.
A little more detail when I said "environment" I'm talking about three main factors:
1.) Government regulation creates such an overhead to entry that only giant companies or giant investments can even hope to enter the market.
2.) Government regulation is often subject to arbitrary authority of bureaucrats, which are avenues for corruption; rather than direct bribes as is common elsewhere the more common form in the US is for the regulatory agencies to swap employees back and forth with the oligopolies. They retain brand loyalty or show it so as to assure themselves a future career, and then they go online and brag that their wages have tripled despite covid and inflation. These are the "experts" that Double R trusts.
2.) Government regulation is often subject to arbitrary authority of bureaucrats, which are avenues for corruption; rather than direct bribes as is common elsewhere the more common form in the US is for the regulatory agencies to swap employees back and forth with the oligopolies. They retain brand loyalty or show it so as to assure themselves a future career, and then they go online and brag that their wages have tripled despite covid and inflation. These are the "experts" that Double R trusts.
3.) Government steals money and pays huge amounts of it to government contracts, again gained by corruption more likely than not. Often this is the only choice to compete at all given that if your competitors are being paid $$$ for delivering less than you are they are going to win in the private (fair) market too since they can use that money to invest in their production chain as well as hire thousands of people whose job it is to pander to government nonsense (see #1).
Created:
Picture is worth a thousand words:
Also
Created:
could face prison time.
So steal voter data (which is primarily a problem due to mail ballot fraud), actual attack on democracy: could face prison time, if you're a right-triber
On the other hand if there is a riot which you were nowhere near after a fake election then you get 22 years https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/05/politics/enrique-tarrio-sentencing-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy/index.html
Created:
"We broke the economy, but at the last minute we adopted the policies of the right-tribe so there is no reason for you to vote for the right-tribe which was opposed to breaking the economy from the start"
Similar to the border narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
does it bother you that these are accurate descriptions of about 90% of Democrats?You forgot college educated professionals who make 10 times what you make.
Looters were mentioned...
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
I don't think we are compatible.Because I criticized you?
Your 'criticism' in light of my posts can only be explained by one of two possibilities:
1.) You think the world is so simple that the barest hint of disagreement is enough to categorize someone, that only two categories matter (for if there were more you would have needed more evidence), and that those two categories summarized everything that was important about a person and anything they might say. In other words you are so tribal as to leave no room for reason.
2.) You believe in a complex world with many nuanced belief systems and in people who aren't perfectly self-consistent, yet you thought you could infer from my short post one particular belief system and that this particular belief system was only adhered to by those "lack of independence and free-minded thinking". In other words you haven't a clue how to use logic.
By fanaticism or ignorance I doubt we'll see eye to eye on anything important except by coincidence, but it's not like I won't talk to you or anything; just first impressions.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
I suppose this lack of independence and free-minded thinking comes from you being a Democrap.
I don't think we are compatible.
I think there is plenty of cliff left before they start killing children without parental consent.They don’t have to, they just have to get you to do it for them by insisting on their “pro-choice” agenda.
So mind control?
If you allow the thing, you support the thing
That does not follow.
e.g. Hamas protests on college campuses
That's not really communism, more like attempted suicide given that they're gender-confused hyper-feminine atheists (generally speaking) advocating blind compassion towards hyper misogynous theocrats.
Regardless it seems you're saying "abortion will kill your grandchildren because your children will be indoctrinated and kill their children (your grandchildren)", I suppose you could have been addressing the soon to be brainwashed school children but I don't see why you would expect them to be reading your post and in that case the more concise statement would be "you're at risk of killing your children from all the propaganda so don't do that"
This sharply contrasts with drugs and crime which can certainly kill your children without one's consent (unlike abortion).
Or perhaps another interpretation is that if you're male a female partner might kill your children through abortion, but if the mother of your children wants to kill them you've got bigger problems. Surely if the mind-virus is a powerful filter then many women would not survive and perhaps more men than women will in which case there will be intensified competition for those women who are immune.
Then stopping the mind virus would be of benefit to the immune males so that they have better chances to find a wife. So even though you said "your children" it seems to make the most sense for someone who can't find a sane woman much less has already had them. Those with children may be swayed by other arguments but certainly their children are not under threat from abortion.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Double R does love to trust the experts (expertise determined by him).Determining whether someone has experience and credentials is not rocket science
I'll be using my own expertise experts thank you very much.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
Wonderful, the left tribe has such brilliant and level headed minds such as IWRA, Sidewalker, and HistoryBuff on this site. Now you're here to balance it out. Watching you talk past each other will be potentially somewhat entertaining.
If you want one example of where an objective person might suspect you're less than rational in your politics:
abortion will kill your children
No, at worst it kills other people's children.
I think there is plenty of cliff left before they start killing children without parental consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Weird and Hitler does sound a lot easier to digest than "stolen valor"
Ah but there are the demographics to think about. I strongly suspect the politically clueless are underrepresented in the left-tribe and anything more complicated than "weird" was just too much time out of their day. I think even "threat to our democracy" was a bit long and fell flat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Can't we just call him "weird" 53,000 times and win?
I guess "Hitler" doesn't work anymore?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Or if you want to know what a criminal is doing, ask a criminal (instead of a policeman) because criminals know best and you can trust them.
Double R does love to trust the experts (expertise determined by him).
Created:
-->
@Double_R
roflThere's certainly enough evidence to put two and two together, which is a lot more than we can say about Joe and Hunter Biden but that hasn't stopped republicans in the house from wasting an entire term on it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The only thing he is honest about is wanting to rape childrenHow rude. I never said I want that.
I notice you didn't deny being a dishonest troll :p
Created:
Nope, I haven’t done anything like that. In fact, I’m all for keeping the trees where they are! They’re crucial for the environment and make neighborhoods much nicer. If you’re dealing with a tree-related issue or need advice on trees, I’d be happy to help!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
In fact, we could have a balanced budget, zero debt, taxes on the rich, and still have a massive amount of theft through inflation "paying" for all the free gibs.
Well because of the way they set it up they inflate through debt. That is the FED prints money and then 'loans' it to the government. When the government (or anyone else) "repays" the loan the dollars are deleted from the system.
You are of course correct that they can merely move the shell game to giant corporations, owned by the so called "rich". The Fed gives them a bunch of money and would you look at that they're "spending" it on buying things the deep state wants them to.
In fact you can convert that straight into government controlled "spending" by simply adding a balanced amount of government contracts and government taxes. The Fed gives you the fake money, then the government steals the fake money (taxes), then the government pays you back the fake money to do stuff they want which means to "buy" from the real economy (actual goods and services).
Net result of shell game? Productive people give value to government ends (which aren't productive) while the dollar loses value.
Some of what we see is in fact that, which brings up an important point: The federal bonds issued by the federal reserve to the government are only part of the inflation. It's worse than the debt counter implies.
The problem is in the act of centralized printing of currency. No matter where it ends up, the act of creating it means that beforehand nobody owed the Fed a thing, and afterward they owed the Fed something. That theft can't be repaired.
Created:
Posted in:
No quantity measured in dollars is relevant since inflation is the mechanism of theft. "wages" don't matter "real wages" matter. "GDP" doesn't matter, "real GDP" matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Incredibly Best.Korea took the words out of my mouth:Assuming everyone is okay with a significant cut in the standard of living, a 50% flat federal tax could eliminate the debt in about 18 years assuming for no additional spending/money printing.
Assuming everyone is okay with a significant cut in the standard of livingit's irrelevant if they are "okay" with it.The standard of living will fall anyway
We either die from taxes (theft) or die from inflation (theft). The only thing that could possibly turn it around would be:
A.) Stop the waste (they won't)
B.) Start transferring the economy over to Monero ASAP (no inflation, no auditing means taxes would be all but impossible to calculate much less collect)
Don't get caught up in the math about their monopoly money. They control it, they know they control it; and as long as people are looking at that instead of the production and consumption of goods and services they can keep the lie up.
The "debt" is just a word we're using for the wealth they've already stolen and wasted. To say we're no longer capable of paying it back is merely the admission that the means no longer exists to replace the stolen goods. That's not a good sign but it's not the end. Nothing needs to be paid back to anybody. Debt to the FED is pixie dust and debt to citizen investors and other countries simply means they were scammed.
The deep state (and all socialist governments) are parasites and while yes, they are killing the host right now; that doesn't mean we're dead yet. There is always hope given sufficiently radical suppression of the parasite.
Chat GPT says taxing people who make 100k at 50% and taxing everyone below that at 25% is still less tax revenue than the current spending budget (by about a half a trillion).....god help us.
Not sure if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. What people do not understand until they really understand what is going on here is that this is already the price we're paying.
You can't defer the whole economy on a promise. Yes there are people who are expecting a return on growth, really just getting a little bigger slice of the imaginary pie they've projected; but what matters is that any spending accomplished through "debt" is paid for through inflation.
It absolutely no different from taxing everyone at 50% and the prices not skyrocketing, and as they keep wasting more and more resources and our production compared to their waste keeps going down and down the tax rate would go up and up while the prices remained the same.
The ONLY difference is that it would be ABSOLUTELY obvious who the thieves ruining our lives would be in that case and there could be mass civil disobedience. You can't mass civil disobedience inflation (except by using another currency, which is why they WILL attack crypto if it begins to be used that way).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If elected what do you think each of the Presidential candidates would do if this happens on their watch?
Nothing.
Or maybe you were asking what lie they would go with, who they would blame, and what meaningless pretended response would they order?
Well regardless of that the actual outcome would of course be hyperinflation for those living in the USA and those buying from the USA, and for those who don't have to deal with the USA they would basically assume all those bonds are now worthless (because they are).
It's just a round about way of deleting the debt, no politician is honest enough to use those words nor will they ever officially "default" on the debt.
This is 100% likely for any deep state puppet and Trump (although not a puppet) showed no insight or management into the federal reserve scam the last time so he would probably go with whatever the lying thieves told him this time as well.
Deep state would blame Iran, Putin, China, basically whoever they wanted to bomb next, probably China if there is a threat of it becoming the new center of governmental investment.
Trump would blame spending and immigrants. The first is true in a way (it's the stealing not the spending that is the problem), the second is only true insofar as it causes spending and spending requires stealing.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
apologizing to users who were never even on DART and will never see this.
Oh, you don't know that. I found this site because someone mentioned me and I was trying to find one of my posts on DDO. Just the name-drop can draw them, internet works on seance rules.
Created:
Ask yourself why. Really ask it again, use your debating tactics to debate against the delusion. Then ask, even if that is a valid reason, is this even close to the best way to handle it?
It's a vent for impotence, but so are a great many phenomenon in human society and within the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Ukraine is retarded.Russia defeated the (once considered invincible) Grand Army of Napoleon by luring them deep into their territory.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
These scenarios are incomparable. The is a battlefield ruled by very expensive weapons of the 21st century. They are running out of microchips not food. Dominos delivery could handle logistics for the Ukrainian assault.
2. Enemy has to suffer from guerrilla warfare done by local population.
This is not total war, the civilians are trying to stay alive.
4. Also, there is a winter coming soon, which has caused great casualties in the past to enemies fighting against Russia on its territory.
Winter kills starving sick infantry lacking winter clothing. Of course it will be a concern but the idea that there is going to be the same kind of mass causalities that there were in the past is absurd.
will have to built new airports because old air ports are too far away to support new front line.
Nothing in your post is more an obvious copy paste from totally different contexts than this.
"new airports" in the heartland of Russia/Ukraine. They almost certainly don't even need to rebase their squadrons to support Kursk and if they did want to for rapid turnaround: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kursk+Airport/@51.7494193,36.2799649,591m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x412f03c000000001:0xb433bae910f891dc!8m2!3d51.7494193!4d36.2825398!16s%2Fm%2F0275pyp?entry=ttu
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
THEY TOOK HIS JEEEERRB!
Created:
5 reason FLRW sounds like a bot:
5 Reasons We Need Trees for a Healthy Planet
- 1. Trees purify our air and combat climate change ...
- 2. Trees provide housing to millions of species that protect us from disease ...
- 3. Trees cool our streets and cities ...
- 4. Trees protect against floods and water pollution ...
- 5. Trees ease the mind during stressful times
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
M6x0.75
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Well the idiots say the same thing.Just for us to recognise the idiots and not give them the mic.
The mass of virologists and immunologists
It's pretty clear you want to talk about vaccines, but the point was more abstract.
There was a time when talking about cellular biology was something only a wierdo would do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
This guy looks defeated:
Defeating a man is not defeating an argument.
The vast majority of people are only ever going on appearances anyway and real science and expertise is advantaged here in that real and fruitful innovation pays for uniforms and positions and titles and big offices from which to speak authoritively.
Stealing from and defrauding people also pays for that. See the nazis.
But you might make them feel foolish for it. If nothing else, that's fun.
Yea, that's what they said before the first civil war too... whip those yankees and be back in time for supper; such fun....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I can't get to discord, but if he put it on his youtube channel...Wylted had a really nice 1 hour speech on the philosophical value of instinctual truths vs propaganda truths. On discord.
My preliminary question would be: if propaganda 'truth' is in fact false (some of the time), is instinctual truth always true? If instinctual truth is actual truth then how do you distinguish instinctual truth from propaganda "truth"?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Why is that? and if the chickens didn't produce more calories than the half harvest you would supposedly lose aren't you conceding the original contention?The point is that "cows + chickens + trees" produce more than "grains + chickens". So stop punching strawmen please.
That could be true, but it would only be true if the trees are better (at capturing solar power and making it available as starch/sugar) than the grains regardless.
That's some plants are better than other plants, not that animals are better than plants.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
@Best.Korea
What he said.3. The only way all moral opinions can be equally applied is if all have same amount of area for application.4. Thus, each person can own his body and apply his moral opinions to it.This doesn't work. You can claim all moral opinions have the same validity or worth, but once they are applied in the same area they will contradict eachother. That conflicts with the concept of either of them being objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Today, the true measure between a crazy belief and a normal belief is a simple calculus of propaganda. (see dick chopping for minors)
I would advance that it's always been that way, but it was less obvious in times of consensus.
By "that way" I mean people have for the most part always believed what they were told and not critically (rationally) examined claims from their own tribe (family, nation, team, etc...) for errors nor seen if they could find an error in rival tribe's claims.
Those who believed in some kind of baseline "common sense" built into the human mind that kept the normal people more or less in line with each other were always wrong, and the fact that "suddenly" 20% of the population is fine with child-dick-chopping is their bad theory about humanity hitting painful reality.
@Wylted, what happened to the intuition of the dick-choppers?
I say there never was any intuition but the programming of peers, in this case (and in large civilizations in general) as organized by the propagandists.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Ever heard of fruit trees? Nut trees?Those are the trees you are supposed to farm on same land as animals, obviously.
Well it's not like the animals would be getting energy from the trees, so you're talking about secondary power from the undergrowth below the canopy; and sure you can capture that with some animals, goats are ideal I would think but others could do it as well. If we had robot pickers you could grow more human edible low light tolerant plants like herbs, some vegetables, and several kinds of berries.
That's not "animals produce more food than plant farming does" that's "in some cases animals can add a small amount of food to a base plant farming strategy"
Very few animals can graze on trees. Trees like it that way.Really? You think cow cant eat tree leaves?
Not an adult tree, that's one of the reasons they grow high; but they also have chemicals in the leaves to make them bitter if not poisonous.
I don't have a list of which saplings could be eaten by cows but it hardly matters since a sapling will never be a good plant to feed cows and if they did eat them they would never grow large enough to be useful otherwise and if you did let them grow large enough they would no longer be a food source for the cows.
Chickens can eat insects in a grain field too.Sadly, not unless you want to reduce your grain yield by half.
Why is that? and if the chickens didn't produce more calories than the half harvest you would supposedly lose aren't you conceding the original contention?
So long as the animals are eating things humans are willing to eat we must be losing energy by further conversionsWell, unless you are willing to eat grass and insects, I dont really see your point.
I eat grass seed all the time. Grass is the best, too good actually.
Again if you're talking about using waste products or plants to feed animals that is not the contention of the title of this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
Adherence to cultural norms and conceptual orthodoxy is already too strong a temptation in humanity (see hundreds of thousands of years of essentially zero progress), it doesn't need to be encouraged. I have no problem with this purported Vance quote.
In truth I reject the axis as relevant entirely. If you're taking the time to consider something "crazy" you may as well use reason instead of spending time wondering just how popular or unpopular it is.
No flat earth argument was ever defeated with "you're a weirdo".
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Vegans are right, it's a matter of conservation of energy. So long as the animals are eating things humans are willing to eat we must be losing energy by further conversions.
Animal farming can be combined with tree farming, and animals can even eat leaves provided by trees.
Very few animals can graze on trees. Trees like it that way.
Same cannot really be said about plant farming.
Ever heard of fruit trees? Nut trees?
Tractor which tills soil cannot till near trees, as it would damage roots.
True.
Different farm animals can make use of same land.
Not really. If you have land with different biomes you can use it more efficiently with different animals but that's not really "the same land".
Chickens can eat insects and grass seeds
Chickens can eat insects in a grain field too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am not God
Thanks for clearing that up...
The world is going to shit and its not because of bestiality, but because people ignore the more important problems and focus on insignificant problems.
Almost nobody is focusing on bestiality, but when people are irrational simple problems become intractable; say "oh no how will trans people go to the restroom!?"
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You bring in new people they are consumers as well as producers, all else being equal they should create enough jobs for themselves by buying products for themselves.I heard people say this else where but these people are not normally bringing new money in, so it us still 5 billion in the economy and now you bring more people in and you still have 5 billion, and in fact the ones that get jobs send money back home so it seems less money per person is in the economy
Money is just wealth being traded at the moment. The vast majority of wealth is not currency even if it is measured in currency. For instance if you added up the appraised value of every building in any given country it would far exceed the currency in circulation (and I don't just mean paper, electronic too).
When people "send money home" they are actually exchanging it for local currencies at some point. The currency doesn't leave the new county's system, the net effect is that somebody from the home country gets some good or service from the new country and the money stays in the new country's system.
The money stays, but the wealth leaves; in theory the migrant worker created that wealth and the reason they are a migrant worker in the first place is because they can produce more wealth per unit of labor in the new country compared to the old.
However if they displace a local worker the net efficiency of the new country can go down.
I think I mixed up Somali and Rwandan and they are from Rwanda. I need a fact checkers to verify
Well if they are truly Rwandan then christian is a good bet. Flip a coin between catholic or protestant.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
So uh... RM leaves DART in a rage, and then he argues with you on discord and then you make a video about that and post it everyone and specifically on DART.
If that doesn't bring him back what will?
----------------
These people do seem to be part of the global right-tribe: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Zo37tPy9tDA
Having more people in the labor force reduces the amount of available jobs
Jobs aren't a fixed pool unless they are closely tied to a limited natural resource (which is very unusual these days).
Rather than absolute numbers there are ratios that should be considered. Quality of life is determined by the efficiency of production and efficiency is a ratio between desired good/service and effort/time required to get it.
Production efficiency is controlled by many things but if you had to make three categories:
Means of production
Education/intelligence/experience of workforce
Motivation of workforce
You bring in new people they are consumers as well as producers, all else being equal they should create enough jobs for themselves by buying products for themselves.
BUT everything is not equal especially over short timescales. Economic refugees (the real phenomenon around the world) do not have the education and experience used in high efficiency production chains AND they are not bringing high efficiency means of production with them.
To the degree that the means of production can't be expanded fast enough and the immigrants can't be trained fast enough you are right that there aren't going to be high efficiency jobs available and the net result is that the average production efficiency goes down and the quality of life in the country goes down.
You can see this easily by using extreme examples. Suppose you had a nation of a thousand people using robotic assembly lines (little ones), computers, 3D printers, etc... and they were living really well. Then 100 million people from the dark ages immigrate.
Even if all those immigrants followed the laws perfectly and there was no cultural conflict, the nation as a whole would become an agrarian dark age society. The original thousand could not feed or house that many which means they would have to feed and house themselves.
The presence of the advanced production chains and academic centers would mean that the nation would eventually return to its high quality of life, but it could take a generation or more.
Now things wouldn't get worse for the people with high production efficiency, in fact their buying power would increase as they would be the producers of relatively more rare products than they used to be, but that's only if there was no government guarantees of quality of life. Even something as simple as government guaranteed bone-setting could mean that the 1000 people have most of their production stolen from them just to put splints on the 100 million.
Now add to that the fact that land is not an infinite resource in practice and you have more ways the low efficiency population would start to crowd out the original citizens.
Parents came from Somalia... what church
Somalia is 99% suni muslim
They came here after the Rwandan genocide...
I don't think there were a lot of Somali in Rwanda in 1994.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
He raped her in a changing room in a department store.
After which (like all rape victims) she publicly praised him because she wanted to be on his show. riiighhtt....
nor any believable explanation as to why she waited till Trump was the leader of the free worldfor the same reason why most women don't come forward.
People might not believe them? but when Trump became enemy of the deep state #1 you had a whole city of delusional fascists who would believe anyone accusing Trump of anything.
Powerful men sexually assault women all the time.
Doesn't change the burden of proof.
or because people in general will negatively judge them. So they stay silent.
Works the other way too, if you get praised for crying wolf; you might just do it whether you saw a wolf or not.
They are absolutely binding.
I dare you to bind me.
You are being REALLY dense.
That's what parliament said.
It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.lol no. He was found civilly liable for raping her. That means it is now an established fact that he did it. If he says she is lying, he is automatically defaming her because a jury has already found that to be a defamatory lie. So if he does it again, he is guilty again. Which is why he was found liable the 2nd time.
It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is spin, and then there is pulling 45G in a centrifuge.Like when drunk (allegedly) Pelosi wanted to replace one of the Mt Rushmore faces with Biden's?
Allegedly is good enough for Trump to have disparaged WW2 vets, extorted Ukraine, hijacked the presidential limo, raped a lady a million years ago, etc... etc...
Therefore allegedly is good enough to say Pelosi did say that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Fairytail? That will last you years.
Too many characters. More than Naruto. A steady diet of battle and comedy. What you find cute I don't know.
Whoops I forgot the assignment:
I am not someone who likes spam anime that has 200 episodes of which most are crap just made to fill space, so dont recommend anything that has lots of episodes.
Never mind, do not go near Fairytail!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine a time when nobody knows whether they want to vote for Biden or Trump? That's the end of blackness right there.
To save the black race from extinction we need a way to turn people black.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
That's probably the reason it was outlawed in other cultures and why we find it disgusting today
I could say a lot to debunk that. Let me go with the highlights.
In the middle aged European towns where bestiality would get you the death sentence, they threw human (and animal) bodily waste in to streets and alleys. That's not a cultural aversion to disease causing behavior.
In deep time, when evolution was operating, people were regularly eating raw meat and getting into bloody fights with animals. Genies can't be put back into the bottle.
The disgust is not specific, that is why homosexuality, masturbation, and kissing have all been looked at with the same disgust at various times and places. As far as I can tell any sexual practice will be disgusting if not normalized by cultural acclimatization.
It's all fun and games till you walk out your door and have three crackheads on your sidewalk you have to move by every day while they're begging you for change
"please, I have to feed my dog man"
Thing is sex (even with non-humans) isn't a debilitating addictive drug that prevents you from doing productive work or causes you to make financially reckless things. That goes without saying, now if this was just a general example of how liberty is supposed to lead to bad ends fine I guess, but even if we accepted it as possible that the ideal society has 'victimless crimes' that doesn't mean bestiality ought to be one of them.
Drugs destroy people's lives. Bestiality doesn't. Actually it does when it's exposed in a population where it is illegal and highly taboo. Always there are fringe cases but we're talking <1% for bestiality where it's more like 1/3 to 2/3 of people who try crack cocaine get addicted and spiral down to destruction with no easy exit ramp.
You mean you would advocate?
Condone means I would say there is nothing wrong with it.
I don't think you can argue against the transcendental truth very well
No I can't, and I don't have to, because it's not an argument to say "my conclusion is a transcendental truth". It would be a named fallacy and maybe it is in one of the bigger lists.
It means nothing to someone who doesn't feel it, faith means nothing to someone without faith.
Reason can build a bridge between differing minds. Faith cannot.
I don't mind watching the videos. Maybe it will actually get some people to come to the site. You probably shouldn't upload 50 hours of debating bestiality though :p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You basically imply that if you're smart enough you can just power your way to victory in any debate through the magic of IQ.
Not much I can say to that. If winning a debate doesn't mean anything, then losing a debate doesn't mean anything. Then why debate? but if reason is impotent then you have no chance of arguing me into accepting your intuition above mine. Thus we find another dead end.
It's true that just because nobody can prove you wrong, that doesn't make you right; but that isn't exactly what I said.
We're talking about taking the con of a positive assertion. It's not like I can craft a deductive argument that proves bestiality MUST be moral, in that case giving as many people the chance to present arguments is (as I said) "as good as it gets".
If I was making a positive assertion, and I had a deductive argument for it; I would care far less about this "polling", although as a matter of principle I would still offer my argument for review (i.e. a debate).
Is the bad worth the good?
No, that was not my point.
We do not choose to feel emotion. Emotion is a reaction to perceived facts and chosen values. It is inevitable.
The point was that starting with emotion is putting the cart before the horse. If there is one emotion that never leads to evil it is compassion. All others, including love need only the admixture of falsehood (bad logic, bad evidence) to produce tragedy.
Yet now we see even compassion blinds people, as it has blinded people with regards to mutilating children's genitals and the crimes of Hamas.
If love could save us, Christianity would have saved us. It didn't, it won't; there is no substitute for the truth and no path to the truth but reason.
I believe that deeply, and my heart follows my belief as it always will.
Unless you need to, in defense of someone you love
Every soldier who has ever gone to war has said they were doing it to defend their homeland and their family which they loved.
Their love is equal. The only difference that could possibly matter would be the ethics of their governments. If the love of a soldier can be turned to evil by falsehood, why would it be any different within an individual?
'All hate is born from love', that's not true
Love is the emotional reaction which motivates protection and creation of value. Anger is the emotional reaction which motivates immediate protection of value. Rage is the immediate revenge-motivator, revenge serves to remove threats to value permanently.
Hate is abstract and crystalized rage. It endures where anger and rage subside with adrenaline.
Hate is what kills the predator before they get close to the children.
You won't find a single example of someone being filled with hate without them admitting to loving something they see as threatened.
There are those who value nothing, nihilists. They don't hate. There is no fire in them at all.
There are those that value having values and hate the whole world because the world threatens their dream of finding significance.
I don't know if he enjoys hearing from me or not
Watching someone read out my sentences is pretty interesting. Never had that before. I'm paying attention to the compound sentences you have to read twice, that probably means they should have been simplified and separated.
Apparently some people don't "read aloud" in their mind like I do.
I would love to hear why you're against it (pedophilia)
I've done a mini debate with Best.Korea in one of his rare non-trolling phases. I can find that if you're interested but the summary is:
Prepubescent children don't consent. Not "can't" "don't", if you see a prepubescent child consenting to sex it's because somebody is threatening them, lying to them, or bribing them. They have erogenous zones but not the psycho-sexual formation in their brains to be lustful or form specific attractions this can be demonstrated etc... etc...
When the child reaches a certain level of social awareness and wisdom (yes wisdom, not knowledge) they will in high percentages view threats, lies, or bribes as dishonest betrayals from someone they trusted, if that someone was an adult they rightly assume the adult knew they were lying etc... this betrayal is the source of trauma of various severity.
Psychological trauma is harm, it is a general responsibility to not harm others or take significant risks of significant harm unless the harm was specifically consented to and children without the wisdom to predict the pain of the betrayal cannot consent to the harm of the betrayal.
Post pubescent is a different matter. Threats, lies, or bribes still cause trauma of course but you can't rule out mutual sexual interest. Then you need to look at circumstances, an 17 year old with a 16 year old relationship doesn't necessarily constitute an impending trauma.
The perception of betrayal is heavily influenced by social norms and those norms dictate what constitutes an immoral risk.
For instance a 30 year old goes after a 16 year old. Now the 16 year old might be genuinely attracted to the 30 year old and have convinced herself she is in love, but if they live in a society where any sex is going to get called statutory rape then the 30 year old has the duty to refrain from sex merely on the high likelihood that the 16 year old might be convinced by social pressure she was raped.
Only slightly more complicated than the standard spiel but correctly predicts all (and not just some) scenarios and outcomes. It also explains history, how people used to get married at 14 and there is a glaring lack of diaries saying "so I was definitely raped until I was 18 what a bummer".
A few things should go without saying: A lot of what people imagine when they think of pedophilia are straightforward cases of kidnapping and rape, or rape by extortion. As legal guardians parents should be informed of all relevant aspects of a child's life and I have no problem with failing to obtain consent from parents being criminal.
So when you rule out those two categories you're basically left with parents crazy enough to say "yes" to a genuinely dangerous interaction. Now you make it illegal to pimp out your children, because that is really the only reason a 'sane' parent would say yes and what is left?
I guess the absolute crazies who would let a 45 year old clown drive off with their children for the sake of diversity or something, but those people are (as you say) cutting off dicks and maybe someone should be stepping in to stop them anyway.
Maybe that same argument could be used to destroy your argument
No it couldn't because non-humans can't be shamed by society and they don't get much wiser than they are at sexual maturity.
I think it's good enough that most people find it disgusting
History contradicts that premise, for what people find disgusting is not constant.
You're really not hurting anybody by outlawing it
Liberty means you don't get to decide what hurts for others.
I guess your opinion is probably that we shouldn't legislate victimless crimes
Yes
Whatever happened with LGBT can happen with bestiality
and the catholic church might launch a crusade against a gaybar, but people's rights are not subject to the imagined slippery slopes of critics.
You have a right to a religion so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others and you have a right to homosexual or zoosexual behavior as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others.
The LGBT movement is an evolving cult, not a class of behavior. No matter what it does or does not do attacking people for homosexual sex will always be wrong just like attacking people for praying to god will always be wrong no matter how recently a jihad or crusade happened.
You would legit start seeing people marry their dogs
Probably they would claim to be marrying their dogs but that wouldn't be a true consequence of any argument I've made. The only reason "gay marriage" was ever an issue was because people were trying to force social acceptance (something they do not have a right to) through subverting existing institutions.
The slip could have stopped right there if not for the political structures involved. It was not an inevitable consequence of failing to abduct and castrate homosexuals.
you would see confused kids being taken advantage of
Again, subverting existing institutions (like schools); done by a specific cult like movement. This isn't an argument against bestiality it's an argument against this cult that may not last another ten years (or may take over the world and rule it in a digital fascist state for a hundred thousand years)
The narrative that is needed to defeat this thing is recognition of the difference between their political agenda and the actual state of sexual liberation. That's already happening to some degree with homosexuality and it has weakened the cult significantly.
Unwarranted criminalization was the genuine and justified origin story and the farther they get from it the weaker they become. If you were to advocate for re-criminalizing homosexuality that would make them three time as strong as they are now.
Of course they invent victims where there are none, but if you wanted to deny them good fuel you would minimize the number of real victims they could use.
They aren't interested in zoosexuals right now, bizarrely they seem more interested in pedos, but it could actually give them a new lease on life if they did adopt zoosexuality as a cause, and that boost could be negated by jointly advanced decriminalization. Not that I think that is at all in the realm of possibility, nor can the two of us do anything about it either way.
If that does start to happen, right-tribers standing firm against bestiality would only ensure that it becomes a major political issue that might cause it to become propaganda material. I mean these people caused a fight over bathrooms because they found slight opposition in the right.
They'll call it a sexual orientation
It is a sexual orientation. It's a pretty loose term.
I'm sure there are diseases and other things that could spread from that
Not really. Or to be precise not just from that.
I know cats can get covid
Yea, there are lots of zoonoses but there is very little that can be spread by sex but not a light bite or facial licking.
For example (your example) covid just requires you to be breathing in the same building as the cat.
There have been some examples of diseases spreading because of bestiality
The only claimed example I have ever heard of was HIV, and it was more like a fringe possibility with the much more likely explanation being eating undercooked meat.
All medical arguments come to moot very quickly when you understand the origin of diseases. They aren't caused by interaction they are created by mutation. The only animals with isolated diseases are isolated populations of animals. It's not like we're talking about going on an expedition to have sex with a rare bat, these are dogs and horses. Anything they have, we'll get (if it's possible). Anything we have, they'll get (if it's possible). It's inevitable with or without sex.
Plus if you actually did find a true STD zoonoses, quarantine is exceedingly easy. If HIV spread among homosexuals it's because the bastards wouldn't stop having sex, and I don't feel at all bad about naming and shaming individuals who didn't care if they were spreading lethal viruses around.
If you are imagining a contagion spreading into the human population, I have to say that too is inevitable (and still hasn't happened as far as anyone can tell). What I mean by that is taboo or not, legal or not, it's going to happen and those people are going to then have sex with humans.
If disease control was the goal it would be much better if those who are active with animals can be honest with their doctors so risks (if any) could be discussed, and honest with potential human partners.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
...Intuition is a lot of things, it's a lot of processes, a lot of math and calculus going on in your subconscious mind...
Not sure how much math is involved in ethics, but what matters is that we know it can be wrong and we know it can be learned (disgust responses specifically). That's all we need to know to reject it as the basis for violence and ostracism.
...They don't have a robot that can catch baseballs....
I know this is a tangent but classical mechanics + third order approximations for fluid dynamics are well within the power of a modern computer and can easily exceed human judgement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93WHRSKg3gE (that was 12 years ago) I am sure if nothing better has been made it is because no one has been paid enough money, not because it is impossible.
I guess you were trying to make a point about the subconscious parts of the brain being impressive, and I don't deny that; but it's unwise to have faith in them over conscious thought.
A hundred millions years of good reflexes and "muscle memory" won't learn Newtons laws, and even if there are some things humans are naturally disgusted by; that doesn't mean they should be disgusted. (or things that feel right, that may not be; like forcing yourself on a harem after murdering rival males)
abandoned this intuition that a greater being exists... men can get pregnant
Rational philosophy may cause people to abandon faith in god, but it's not the only thing. There can be no argument that reason fails because an argument is reasoning. This is what Rand calls an axiom, so there really isn't anything to talk about down this alley.
Men can't get pregnant. Reason tells me so. Those women who are pretending to be men and saying they are pregnant are relying on (more or less) what you are calling intuition here. They feel deep down that they're right in what they're saying and doing. Rationality did not lead them there.
As a certain fast talking man once said "facts don't care about your feelings", facts come from conscious reasoning, not gut feelings.
Why did we evolve to like people that kind of look like us? We evolved that way because our genetics are more compatible and less likely to have dead offspring.
That's an ironic take given that consistently (almost) every identified "cousin species" for homosapiens sapien has since been shown to be reintroduced into the core genepool at some point.
That is they keep finding skeletons of human "subspecies" that they believed to be separate species (and a species is defined by being a separate gene pool), and then learned that actually no the only way to explain the fossil record, and sometimes direct genetic comparison is if they interbred later on.
A lot of people aren't aware of this fact but it had a big impact on my world view. What we call "races" now are barely different compared to how different the "races" of humanity used to be.
Our isolation in the distant past was much more severe than it was when "history began" (8000 years before present).
We used to be a species where some of our races were hobbit sized, had radically different (by today's standards) facial structures, had big variances in muscle density and bone length, and in all probability some were just as naked as we are (or more) and some were more chimp like being covered in true fur.
We are more similar now because we didn't give a shit back then. Back then there might have actually been enough genetic drift to cause a noticeable difference in fertility or function of the offspring, and in that critical context hybrids dictated the future of the species. If there was some pure and superior version of humanity we would have seen what was expected, many dying lineages that never crossed back into the main trunk.
Genetics and biology in general is very complex, and generalizations don't always survive contact with the evidence. It seems like in many cases hybrids are superior and I can give you two very obvious examples:
1.) Sexual reproduction itself. Lifeforms can clone themselves, but if cloning yourself was better than creating a hybrid with another individual then the world wouldn't be dominated by sexually reproducing species. Different is good if it works.
1.) Sexual reproduction itself. Lifeforms can clone themselves, but if cloning yourself was better than creating a hybrid with another individual then the world wouldn't be dominated by sexually reproducing species. Different is good if it works.
2.) Incest. Incest is nothing more than hyper concentration of the same genes. If you think the healthiest offspring come from sexual reproduction with those most similar to yourself then it would follow that incest produces the best offspring. Different is good if it works.
If I were feeling like wild speculation of the type popular these days about genetics and sexuality I would say that maybe there is a gene which produces xenophilia precisely because finding the weirdest looking human subspecies was an advantageous thing to do in evolutionary history. An out of control or unbalanced version of this gene might spill over into other species. (I do not believe such a gene exists, at least if there is a genetic cause to zoosexuality this would be an oversimplification to the point of falsehood)
Women should be in the workforce, that's a rational argument
No, it's a conclusion made by people who style themselves as rational. There is a difference.
What is rational is determined by the logic, and if evidence has shown unhappiness in women increasing and all other factors are less likely then it is not rational for women to be in the workforce.
Another tangent: In my ethics there is a big difference between what people should be allowed to do and what they should be encouraged to do. I can't imagine a sound argument concluding that violence should be employed to keep a woman out of a field of work; but I can easily imagine a strong argument concluding that girls have been fed propaganda and many have made choices that they were told would make them happy and which did not.
It's[intuition] a lot more accurate
How would I know that but for reason?
It's[following one's animal instincts as opposed to intuition] supposed to come with some form of guilt
Then what does it mean if I've never felt guilty about my sexual thoughts?
You might say "well that means your intuition is broken", but hold on there, if we have different intuition systems then how can we still link the transcendent to the intuitive?
Is there such a thing as "my transcendent truth" and "your transcendent truth"? Is there a god for each of us no matter how depraved some other group may find you? (for surely you know there are people who find Catholics depraved).
BTW it's not like I can't feel guilt, shame, disgust, etc... I have some serious regrets; mostly about how my unguarded tongue have hurt people emotionally.
I even have an example of giving into a base instinct in spite of reason, I am overweight and it's because (this will surprise you) I eat too much. That I feel guilty about because I know it's wrong and since I do it when I know it's wrong it's a personal failure.
When I have no problem with the lizard brain I feel no guilt. I have never felt guilty about breathing and I've never felt guilty about my sexuality.
Do you want to be a martyr?
Well I guess that's an argument for me to personally stop (if I was active, something I never explicitly admit to) but it's not really an argument about the core contention of the thread. As you said I don't need to be zoosexual to argue that there is nothing wrong with it and similarly I don't need to be sexually active (with non-humans) to be zoosexual and argue about it either.
I don't want to be a martyr, but I don't think I will be. I'm much more likely to be lynched for supporting Trump too much. My support for him can actually be traced to me, of course in that fight I have a lot of allies but my strategies take that all into account.
This is basically an appeal to game theory, and in terms of pure game theory secrecy is a valid tactic and I think I can win the game with it without giving up much.
for you to get a partner that would respect you
My sexuality combined with my idea of virtue has already made it pretty much impossible. You imply that if my sexuality is known then I couldn't find someone to respect me, but if my sexuality was a secret from them would it really be respect?
I've always hit a brick wall with my human relationships because I've never trusted them enough to tell. I am not interested in a marriage agreed to with less than total honesty. Doing something like that with the plan to come clean after the first kid is truly asking for suffering.
If you want to talk about my higher self, I have yearned for a family, for the life of a father and if I was to blame something in this world (besides myself) it would be the fact that I can't be open. If I could I could have easily filtered the dating field and perhaps found someone who could be the wife or husband I hoped for.
It would change how many people you know think about you
Surely you must know that I am aware of this. My most treasured relationships are with my siblings, and they know.
There is a time to stand up for something that's right
I'm not standing up, I'm hiding and sending walls of text from the shadows. The only thing I've risked is my own beliefs, which I suppose is a courageous act but only for someone who fears they would be compelled to change those beliefs upon losing a debate.
I don't fear that though. In a real debate, everyone wins because everyone gets closer to the truth.
God's not going to defend you for fucking a dog
I wouldn't know, and frankly I don't think you know either. You think you know, but you don't.
People who claim to believe in god murdered a young woman for fucking a dog in the middle ages. Every once in a while some story in history feels vivid and real to me and that was one. I felt such incredible rage at people who have been dead for centuries.
You might call that part of my intuition. I don't believe god exists, but if something as just as god is supposed to be exists he does not enforce justice in this world. If he did, he would not have let that young woman's life be destroyed for nothing.
If you think there is any way that I will ever believe in an afterlife where the creator of the universe agreed with that despicable mob of murderers you can forget it. My heart will not tolerate such a notion, and it is fortunate that reason agrees.
Created:
Posted in:
Space Brothers, delightfully realist with no harems, giant robots, swords, planetary devastation, or magical high school clubs at all.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well minus the "best of their ability"you choose not to believe he's a rapist. But there is no evidence they did anything short of their duty in examining the evidence and coming a conclusion.
Well other than the fact that millions of people were following the trial closely so I/we know that they weren't presented with any evidence nor a reasonable theory of the crime, nor any believable explanation as to why she waited till Trump was the leader of the free world, nor did they care that they were being asked to find damages for someone denying a crime (damages to be paid to the accuser) which to any sane honest person would have instantly caused them to decide against the plaintiff.
so you choose to believe that it's everyone else who is wrong.
I have no trouble saying "everyone else is wrong", but it's hardly necessary in this case is it. It's more like saying 30% of the population are wrong. That's how many actually believe it. Maybe 20% are so disgustingly fascist as to stand by it after they are familiarized with the facts and realize that they're trying to steal someone's money for defending himself from rape accusations.
Fake jurylol what does that even mean? Do you think they aren't people?
I mean that even if a person had committed to obedience to the laws of the USA and New York State they have no duty whatsoever to consider the proclamations of the so called jury or the so called judge binding in any way.
Just like no one who had sworn an oath to defend the constitution would have any duty to follow Trump's orders if he declared himself president for life and suspended federal elections.
You break the rules, you don't get the authority. The founding fathers made that very clear and it's a moral necessity regardless.
Do you think they were just cosplaying as jurors and random people showed up instead?
The whole psuedocourt was cosplaying.
lol you think English common law doesn't have laws about defamation? They absolutely do.
It's been about a thousand years since attacking the credibility of your accuser and denying a crime was speech eligible as defamation.
They have laws against rape too.
Why wasn't Trump charged then?
Created: