Total posts: 4,833
Trump is no Teddy Roosevelt. A bullet grazed his ear and he crumbled like a little girl. He looked feeble as the secret service carried him off the stage.
There is spin, and then there is pulling 45G in a centrifuge.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think it's about time the democrat nominee looks like their 3:00 AM voter base (decomposed)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
based on his exact same arguments you could argue in favor of pedophilia
Again, this is why BoP matters.
How could my debunking bad arguments argue in favor of pedophilia?
The only possible connection would be if the arguments I debunk were the only ones condemning pedophilia.
As touched on already, there are a lot of people who don't really know why they believe what they believe. Trampling over their bad reasons for being against pedophilia (or anything else) is not a reason to shun the truth (whatever it may be).
I happen to be against what most people think of when they say pedophilia but that is not a conclusion I am begging the question with.
I don't test an argument with "but if this implies pedophilia is fine there must be something wrong with it" (not that any of my arguments have implied such a thing). At some level of analysis arguments to absurdity can be that simple, but in deep formality nothing is absurd but the infinite and self-contradictory.
It doesn't make sense to give the impression you did which is basically "Yea I'm not sure about bestiality but if it involves changing the way I think of pedophilia then this is morally reprehensible"
Pedophilia is no more inherently immoral than bestiality, murder, human sacrifice, or baking a cake. You need reasons to condemn any of them.
That's why I said "happen to" be against pedophilia, from first principles it is a coincidence. I am not one of those who is trying to strike a deal or a compromise "Do what you want with the pedos but leave me alone", and there are many like that. I have much more freedom (in practice) to make arguments in and around pedophilia on this site than I do on those "animal love" sites you referenced. They would shut it down instantly.
Of course they say it's because it disgusts them and it's super evil and all that jazz, and they probably mean it too, I'm not saying they don't; but the real reasons they're so strict is because of optics and because it makes people feel better about themselves if someone else is worse.
My identity, that which gives me what little pride I have, comes from what I see as virtues such as honesty and integrity. Reason is the only teacher I accept. If reason had led me to condone pedophilia, then I would follow (or try to).
Now you go on to speculate that there might be pedophiles who are being held back only by their belief that it is morally wrong. I think it's a very insightful thing to consider because many just assume they're all going to take any opportunity they have.
I think anybody with taboo inclinations is going to think about them a lot harder than most people will and will come to their own conclusions one way or another. Now suppose they go online and look for a debate site. Do you think they would be less likely to conclude that pedophilia is moral when they see a uniform wall of condemnation without reasons or an honest engagement with the topic?
We are talking very small numbers here, most people tend not to think about ethics much and when they do only to find excuses to do what they wanted to do anyway; pedos included, but as far as excuses go "they won't even engage with the topic because they've got nothing" is a pretty good one.
Suppose there are some who really do care about the truth. Suppose all you have to throw at them is "informed consent" or "gods will"? Perhaps you had this one opportunity to keep this pedo celibate but you blew it with that bullshit.
Maybe it is my reason for condemning pedophilia that stops a pedophile because it is actually sound where the invalid arguments would have failed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Gota love the infinite regression at the beginning.
ADOL, they leave off the F
hardy hardy har
should be pronounced beastiality
"beast" is English, "bestia" is the latin root of the word. See bestiary, bestial. So the question is how much magic do you want to use cause Hogwarts has taught us that you really need to use latin to cast spells.
libertarian moral framework
I think libertarianism (also known as real liberalism) is above the level of a moral framework, as in they have a principle but most can't justify it and those that could would disagree with each other.
It's more like an objectivist moral framework but the moral derivation I give is more detailed in a critical area than Rand's and Rand is heavily focused on the complete moral theory which is dominated by personal ethics.
While that is certainly something philosophers should talk about a lot it's a lot of unneeded noise in the political sphere. The social subset of moral principle from objectivism is essentially liberty and thus the political expression of objectivism is basically libertarian.
...his entire adult life...
Well I did have to stop to eat and sleep :p
Jokes aside this is essentially correct. I was a young adult when I read Atlas Shrugged and before that I had never really looked at morality as something you sit down and think about. A lot of people seem to still be in that phase all the way to retirement homes.
After I read everything Rand and Peikoff ever wrote and then read the sources they contested or relied upon (Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas) I deconverted (formally) from catholicism. The clincher was reading Aquinas.
Aquinas is really quite clear in his writings, I mean clear as in the concepts are precise and he never confuses context. The exact polar opposite of Karl Marx (who wrote gibberish in most cases).
However in the clarity errors have no where to hide, and I knew on a conscious level then that I would never have the faith he proved to be necessary to be a christian.
Finally, after my "awakening" I started to emulate the philosophers not just to check them against each other but to get answers for subjects they did not address, one of those was my sexuality.
I haven't changed my beliefs about the morality of bestiality since then, but I've certainly gotten a lot of practice taking apart the attempted arguments against it and in the process I've pinpointed exactly where the conceptual error in the "informed consent" is which rippled out into other domains.
DDO was where that last part happened, but I had already been debating people about bestiality for years before joining DDO.
FYI I also concluded taxation is theft around the same time and have also passionately argued that for the entire time. When I started it was much farther outside the overton window than it is now. In the radicalization of the past couple of decades the liberals (libertarians) have radicalized too and now I hear it more and more often.
..."I'm disgusted by the thought of it", he could still argue that bestiality is correct......Not a lot of people that don't engage in it would make the argument, I guess because it's so taboo...
That's confusing cause and effect. Personal interest motivates contemplation which means apologists are dominated by those with a personal interest.
This is true of all subjects. If I was not a zoosexual I probably wouldn't even have considered the subject except as a joke unless somebody came at me with real arguments, at which point I am fairly certain I would concede (all else being equal) as many people have conceded to me that they have no good arguments but that it still grosses them out and they don't want to spend another second thinking about it.
The act of apologizing for homosexuality shows an almost identical phenomenon before barrier breakdown.
Most people are sheep in the field of ethics. What they refuse to think about they absorb from culture. If being homosexual is cool now that's not because the nature of man changed in the last sixty years.
The catalyst for that change was the portrayal of the homosexual as a victim instead of a threat. A very few people started that trend and they did not do it from some breakthrough in science or philosophy. It was personal interest.
People intuitively 'oh that is wrong'
but what is intuition? Human sacrifice is a nearly universal sin in our distant past. Even today dominant religions believe that god sacrificed himself on a cross (human sacrifice).
I don't need to have faith in tabula rasa to know that the noble savage is a myth.
I don't think we want to see what human intuition looks like without the influence of rational philosophy, or rather we've seen enough to know that it can't be trusted.
That doesn't mean that their premises aren't good, it just means they're hard at putting their premises into words
Maybe my premises are secretly and mystically better than they appear too?
There is no solution down that line of thinking. If debate serves no other purpose than to force people to understand their own beliefs it is a good thing.
I have given over a thousand people the opportunity to search themselves for those good reasons. If they existed, I would assume that somebody at some point would have found them.
Earlier in this thread somebody said something along the lines of "you're just making him feel justified by answering", and I have seen many people make similar comments.
Yes, that is correct. The more I offer to debate a conclusion and the more people refuse or fail to provide a good argument or debunk my arguments the more confident I get.
This is the human condition. I know humans are capable of self-delusion. Debate is the only cure there is, for now; maybe true AI will one day make it obsolete, but I wouldn't take an AI at its word either so....
The point is constantly winning the debate "for my entire adult life" is as good as it will ever get.
You know it in your heart
Yeap, just follow your heart; what could go wrong?
I am reminded of a nickelback song (No they don't suck, it's a fad to say so)
Someone told me love will all save us.
But how can that be, look what love gave us.
A world full of killing, and blood-spilling
That world never came.
All hate is born from love. The heart follows the mind, and when a mind is left to apathy neither are reliable guides.
Evil cannot be explained away as a bunch of people ignoring their hearts.
I don't see a lot of people making the arguments
Neither do I. I have the distinct impression that intellectual honesty and interest in debate (in general) have been declining over the last 20 years. Could be that the debate has moved to twitter and the like but it looks more like a generational cultural shift to me. Things are not looking up.
He might not actually believe consent matters, being a libertarian
Sorry, that doesn't follow at all.
Liberarians are about liberty and liberty is intrinsically bound to consent. To respect liberty is to respect consent. Without consent the only way to be free is to not interact with others.
Consent means "this interaction is not violating my liberty"
I actually have some issues with the popular impression of the word "property", and so my saying animals are or are not property doesn't mean much.
I am most certainly not someone who believes a mind (artificial or natural) can have a discernible will and that this will can be entirely ignored and dismissed because somebody claims to own the body attached to that mind.
My true position is that consent matters, and I was merely pointing out that if you are one of those who thinks animals are merely objects you still wouldn't have an argument.
Treat animals humanely
Note that this is a different axis of measurement for most people from consent. Most people think you can humanely imprison an animal and inject them with vaccines they can't possibly understand or humanely castrate them.
"humanely" means nothing much in particular and in general "not more painful than it needs to be for our human purposes"
So speaking of premises I don't hold, I could say that it doesn't matter if the animal consents as long as its not "unduely" painful.
Consent is a more restrictive standard than "humane".
I'm sure he'll watch it
I see I played right into your plans
What other arguments does he have?
This is why epistemology understanding where the burden of proof is important before debating.
When you don't have the burden of proof and someone asks you to "make an argument against this" you'll find yourself guessing. Guessing what? What the argument purporting to be proof might be.
This is the situation:
Many people (the majority if not vast majority) say bestiality is disgusting, wrong (ethically), and should be illegal (subject to socially condoned physical attacks).
That's a conclusion, I ask them why, then I debunk the answers given. If Polytheist witch was the only person to come up with an answer (non-consent therefore rape, rape bad even if murder OK), then that is the only counter argument I produce.
Other answers to the 'why' that I have seen over the years:
God doesn't want you to
Just because (follow your heart)
If you let this happen (more openly?), then something bad will happen to society
Cause mother nature wants you to make babies and it's wrong to use your bits for anything else
Cause it's cruel
Defiant and self-righteous "just because" people do trigger me, coal can tell you all about it. Not thinking is less than ideal, but being proud of not thinking...
Created:
Posted in:
The Harris campaign should hire you, this is a lot more scary than the incessant honking of "racist felon".
Created:
The meme is that he was only a left-triber when his brain was damaged and now that it is healing he's become a sane right-triber (of sorts).
Created:
Posted in:
What a mess.
Left-tribe: Jews are nazis gas them!
Right-Tribe skinsuit over deep state: No! Israel is an ally, let's bomb Iran (the song)
Left-tribe: How dare you help Israel!
Right-tribe skinsuit over deep state: It will cost lots of money for government contractorssss
Left tribe skinsuit over deep state: Oh, well maybe it's fine. ONLY ANTISEMITIC NEONAZIS WOULD BE AGAINST BOMBING IRAN.
Created:
Posted in:
This thread....
Self-pity about probably fictional events
"kill yourself" from a conceptually challenged individual <- probably against the rules, even the new ones
"Everything is irrelevant" <- perfectly timed nihilism
It's like a piece of art. I think probably FLRW should have said everybody are worms right before the nihilism though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I said it wasn't the sameIt's close enough to make your pearl clutching a double standard.A "lie" perpetuated by an entire community of Americans based...
Oh I don't think those lies are all grass roots. In fact there is documentary evidence that the lies started in the media.
And if that was too many words for you, one was a matter of civil unrest that put public officials in a no win situation
Civil unrest be like that though. That's why they didn't shoot (more) of the Jan 6 mob. Shooting people just makes em angrier much of the time.
the other was conspiracy theory nonsense for which the remedy was a no brainer.
So if only he had recanted? REPENT! AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED?!
Well that can be why you don't vote for him because you are very confused about correlated probabilities, but it won't be why I don't vote for him.
They did move on.
"It used to be the case that the loser concedes and everyone moves on."
"and", learn English Mr. "Basic English" guy.
You seem to conveniently forget that post 2016 was a very different context from post 2020.
They tried mass propaganda and lawfare and saved the riots for a bit later. Russia collusion hoax, Ukraine extortion hoax & projection, impeachments, direct disobedience to POTUS and lying to him about the disposition of the troops.
In 2016 no one had ever seriously tried to claim the winner of the election was not the person Americans actually voted for
False, also 2000
so hyperbolic language and simbolic voting carried a very different meaning
How convenient for your double standard.
Once that happens and the Overton window shifts to the point where people actually start believing our elections aren't secure
So you're allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater until people actually believed it.
Or in other words, Americans for the most part saw through the lies of the left-tribe but something about 2016 made them actually take the possibility of fraud seriously. It could only have been Trump's overwhelming orange charisma, no other explanations permitted.
After the attempt the right went crazy over this claiming the left was inciting violence and yet they said almost nothing while it was happening
They said plenty while it was happening, but it was a prediction that came true after the fact.
I know it's a slow roll but it's a prediction I made as well. Many of my predictions about increasing violence and loss of faith in the government have come true over the last 8 years BTW, doesn't take a genius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
With the entirely justified tin foil hat on, I ask whether they were fair to Trump in the "debate" with Biden because they knew/already wanted Biden gone?
Have they done this to lull Trump into a false sense of security whereby he thinks CNN won't start censoring his mic and "fact checking" him during the censor periods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you just give them the answers how are they ever going to learn how to use google (or brave go depending on how censored the truth is)?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There was a time Japanese would kill you on the spot for that generalization and insult.
And other times when they killed you for doubting it (greater east asian co-prosperity sphere). Such is the nature of bullshit, it contradicts itself all the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Why would they say such a thing?Who brought it up?A bunch of people started saying she was only a candidate because of her race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Who brought it up? Oh right, the propagandists.What does the color of her skin have to do with anything?A lot apparently. Republicans can't stop talking about it.
Created:
-->
@Amber
Hindu=Asian.
Ah, the asian race. Let's dwell on that a bit.
rofl this is more fun than watching trekies argue about exactly how fictional technology violate the laws of physics.
I bet this works on nazis too. Instead of trying to get them to debate something meaningful just suggest that they might not be pure aryans and go get some popcorn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"It's good, but not if you're saying it benefited me"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Watching racists running around like headless chickens is profoundly entertaining at the least.What does the color of her skin have to do with anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I said it wasn't the same
It's close enough to make your pearl clutching a double standard.
(I know you like to pretend these things don't happen, but that is your point dying horribly, screaming for someone to save it)I never suggested these things didn't happen
"these things" being your arguments being debunked....
They all took place in an entirely different context first off all... [bla bla bla]
You said:
It used to be the case that the loser concedes and everyone moves on.
False
none of them claimed he didn't actually win.
False
The only time in history we've ever had a president unequivocally claim the election was stolen
Sitting president, Jimmy Carter was president and he claimed the election was stolen.
That's not a coincidence and the reason why is common sense. It's called the bully pulpit for a reason.
I don't think it's a coincidence either. There is a common cause.
Created:
That's Biden's pal you're thinking of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You go through a lot of vehicles.
I am cursed with knowledge of how to fix them, so they don't die and I get bored. Probably saved a lot of money though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The charge that the police are.... [bla bla bla]
= "It's not a lie so it's fine if it inspires violence"
There is nothing like that when it comes to claims of a stolen national election
(I know you like to pretend these things don't happen, but that is your point dying horribly, screaming for someone to save it)
Define the belief of the Trump deranged in a single statement:
The only variable is Trump.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lack of ATV catapults more likely. ATVs aren't fully effective unless you can drop them on your enemies like a boulder.
Created:
-->
@thett3
That's a good point about structural change in general. We could probably have more rational state borders if we delayed implementation by two terms in the senate.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Jury - people who to the best of their ability weigh the evidence and decide on the elements of a criminal or civil caseand that is exactly what happened.
Well minus the "best of their ability"
Them coming to a conclusion and that conclusion being true are two different things.you can choose not to believe it if you want.
I know, but thanks for the reminder.
But a jury of his peers says he did.
Fake jury
In the eyes of the law
In the eyes of brainwashed zealots acting out a court scene like a high-school drama club.
Whether or not you believe that is unimportant.
Then there is no need for you to waste your time telling me how super real and legitimate it all was.
You're one random dude on the internet, not a jury of my peers who heard the available evidence and came to a legally binding conclusion.
Why am I not?
If you are saying that you are not an adjudicated rapist then your definition of "adjudication" doesn't include baseless assertions by random people.it isn't baseless and she wasn't random. She was a woman who was raped by trump.
Fine, you raped me. Now I have the same basis.
There are no "eyes of the law" if it does not mean "the objective meaning of the law" there are the eyes of judges and juries, and real ones could certainly allow him to sue for trillions.when I say "eyes of the law" I mean it is an established legal fact.
When I say true law and order may yet prevail I mean that real judges and real juries could easily discard your so called "established legal fact". They have fancy words for it as I'm sure you know but they boil down to "we don't care bro, that was bullshit"
Trump cannot say that he didn't sexually assault her in a court.
No real court would attempt to violate Trump's 1st and 5th amendment rights by preventing him from maintaining his own innocence. One of the many ways a rational person can differentiate a fake court like the one you so foolishly think I am bound to respect and a real court under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
It is a fact.
It is a baseless highly suspect accusation that ought to result in defamatory damages being paid to Donald Trump.
If he said otherwise he would be committing as crime.
That is why I mean by "your law" vs "my law". "your law" is a dangerous and disgusting delusion having little to no connection with the concept known as "English Common Law", the traditional legal foundation of the USA.
He has to be very, very careful about it in public either.
He has to be careful because they have a lot of guns and they could steal his buildings. That is the only reason. May we soon see justice served where those guns are hopelessly outnumbered and those guilty of extortion and conspiracy to corrupt a federal election serve their due punishments.
oh the court is very, very real.
The guns are real, but they aren't the only guns in the country.
The money trump has to pay her should prove that.
You also have to pay the mugger, that doesn't prove the mugger is a court.
no one has ever asked you to swear blind obedience.
Blindness is what would be required to confuse that court with liberal civilization.
Trump has appealed the decision.
Trump's lawyers are miming along with the clowns in the hope that adults who would rather sweep this debacle under the rug might give in before drastic measures are required. That's not a legal appeal, it's an appeal to sanity.
I doubt he'll win.
He hasn't paid a dime, and if he does it will be his own fault for cooperating with criminal extortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Those Russian tweets, heartless and cruel they were.Russian saboteurs who sought to subvert foreign elections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
Please don't piss in our global soup....If I was at a restaurant and ordered a soup, and was presented with the ocean, I would be pretty pissed.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
This is what I like to call “The Tulsi Takedown”:
ah, good memories. The deep state would never let someone like Tulsi have a chance. She was definitely the "no thank you civil war" button the sheeple weren't smart enough to press.
If they didn't threaten arson, abduction, and try to assassinate Trump I really would have considered voting for her.
Oh, on that subject; didn't Harris admit to a crime on public broadcasting? I thought <booming voice> nobody was above the law </booming voice>?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Principles > "the law"
Absolutely.
Still:
Captured slaves were once convicted felons too.
At least it was actually illegal to run away from your master.
Evil law is bad enough, but to just make things up and call it law is worse.
As it happens that exactly what happened after the war but before reconstruction (and a bit after reconstruction too). They call them "apprenticeships" and pretended like it was somehow legal to have exclusive revocable right to the unpaid labor of another person on pain of physical punishment. Also good luck finding a "jury" who will do anything but pretend like there wasn't coercion.
Created:
Posted in:
Nations rise and fall, the only true tragedy is diminished ethics.Gee, that’s deep.You think Trump is ethical?
It doesn't matter if he is ethical if what he does (and what people do to stop him) slows/reverses the collapse into tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
....Yes yes, big chain of causality, but you keep saying "but for one man" like it matters; so clearly you think something special happens when the chain of causality passes through a single individual.Chain of causality arguments are always fallacious because the same logic can be applied to anything.
Ok then Trump didn't cause Jan 6, you've been lying all this time. Case closed.
We're talking about how Trump is directly responsible for January 6th.
He created a calendar? Time itself? Oh he manifested as thousands of different people? Impressive.
He's the one who lead the charge for two months telling everyone the election was stolen
So by "directly" you mean "very indirectly"
he's the one who was supposed to send in the troops
Which troops again?
Pretending January 6th was just some coincidental thing that had little if anything to do with Trump is just dumbfoundingly stupid.
Trump told the truth, the truth inspired violence. That's the connection.
To you he told a lie, the lie inspired violence.
To me BLM (and top left-tribe personalities) told a lie (that racist cops go out looking to murder minorities), the lie inspired violence.
To the left-tribe that is a truth.
If controversial speech inspires violence what matters far more than what it inspires is whether it was true. Free speech often inspires violence, and it was through free speech inspired violence that the right of free speech was first enshrined.
If however a person clutches at pearls and advances false (double) standards to the effect of "any assertion that inspires violence is outside the overton window", showing that double standard is as simple as pointing out the consequence of caring about violent consequences rather than truthiness.
When you are willing to sacrifice what you see as the truth to avoid inspiring violence, then you can point fingers. Until then decrying people for not abandoning a leader because his speech inspired violence (this thread) is so much meaningless squawking.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"The politics of personal destruction is wrong. It's just wrong and it has no place and we should have the confidence in what we believe in, our ability to convey or contrast, in case it's a difference, without getting a violent about it".
Vs
"I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be"
Created:
-->
@badger
Don't know much about her tbh but she seems perfectly respectable at a glance.
The wretched hypocrisy of imprisoning people for crimes she committed doesn't rub you the wrong way?
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
She’s half and half, that doesn’t mean she was switching.
You need full if you want to make ganache.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
It doesn't mention abortion as a right, it does mention life as a right which can only be surrendered by committing a crime.But the question is, does a Zygote count as a person?
Not a question put to the supreme court (AFIK).
That did not come up at all in reversing Roe v Wade.
Doctors still disagree about this.
You say "doctors" like they would have special insight. In order for an objective experiment to prove personhood you would first have to define personhood in a way that is subject to objective detection.
Sure, it’s alive, but it’s not really conscious the way that you and me are.
The same is true of a baby, and maybe a twelve year old.
It’s more of a jumble of cells.
I don't think anybody is arguing that a brain is instantly fully formed. The question is whether a functioning brain or hope for a functioning brain is enough to impart rights.
If it was counted as a person, then it’s right to life would absolutely trump the mothers right of choice, but it’s still not clear if that’s true.
Rights don't trump each other. If your theory predicts a conflict between rights where one must take priority your theory is incomplete.
If you can (and we can't) stack the court with people who can objectively interpret the law that would be what we ought to be doing.This supreme court is doing better than previous ones, but far from perfect.But no person can perfectly interpret the law.
Why not? I understand the argument that average opinions are more trustworthy than individual opinions (this is the democratic premise), but that is a statistical (and inductive) argument not a qualitative one.
You need a wide array of different perspectives
Why?
and this amendment will help to achieve that. Currently, we don’t have that.
Why would limiting presidents to two appointees instead of three (or 10 in some cases) achieve that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes yes, big chain of causality, but you keep saying "but for one man" like it matters; so clearly you think something special happens when the chain of causality passes through a single individual. You also seem to ignore the difference between a specific event and an event of the same import.what about all those people who elected and supported that one man?We all must take responsibility for what the people we voted for do, that is irrelevant for the responsibility of the person who committed the act.
For example if Hitler didn't attack Poland he would have attacked Hungary. The order is hardly relevant, suppose Hitler was assassinated and his replacement was another nazi who attacked France first.
Suppose Hitler was assassinated and he replaced by a committee which left it up to the army general staff who to attack first.
I'm seeing no morally relevant differences here, just as I see no morally relevant differences between Trump telling people to "fight like hell" and a bunch of left-tribers using similar (or more violent) language; justifications aside of course.
Supporting Trump before January 6th was one thing, supporting him after is another. The latter is the scum of this country and will be the reason it falls (if we don't stop it first).
Nations rise and fall, the only true tragedy is diminished ethics.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Exactly, so the judges should reflect the law, not the people’s opinions.
Incredibly, IWRA has made a cogent point. Mark your calendars, stop the presses.
Well that’s what’s supposed to happen in a pretty black and white situation, but abortion is anything but.
It's pretty black and white as far as the constitution is concerned. It doesn't mention abortion as a right, it does mention life as a right which can only be surrendered by committing a crime.
If anything (and this is only a stretch given the divide on person-hood situation) one could argue the constitution would require that the fetus be convicted of a crime before being sentenced to death.
On the other hand every state in the union have passed laws making it criminal negligence for a legal guardian to abandon or neglect their wards, so there is a long long precedent of depriving parents of their liberty due to their decision to be parents.
What you mean is that the issue isn't black and white, but the purpose of law is not to be twisted to resolve moral controversy but to be written to enforce the objectively determined moral principles. If the people believed abortion was a right they can add it to the bill of rights (which wouldn't necessarily mean they are right, but it would be subject to the hurdles the constitution demands of such permanent decisions).
Judges will have different opinions on how to interpret the constitution on that issue
Differing opinions is not evidence of fundamental superposition or subjectivity.
People have had differing opinions about whether the Earth is flat but it is objectively (all reason and evidence concludes) a sphere.
People have differing opinions about the US constitution but it is objectively (all reason and evidence concludes) silent on the idea of a "right to abortion".
and so you should load the court with justices that will interpret it one way, when 62% of people interpret it the other way.
If you can (and we can't) stack the court with people who can objectively interpret the law that would be what we ought to be doing.
This supreme court is doing better than previous ones, but far from perfect.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
How about you explain what you think the point of the three branches of the US government are. Contrast the purposes of each.If the court is merely a running average of the political agenda of that last three presidential terms there is no point in having it, may as well just ask have congress do it.Yeah, that’s the point. The court should reflect the attitude of the general public, that’s the whole point of a republic.
If 62% of American didn’t want Roe v Wade overturned and the court voted 5-4 to do it, then clearly something isn’t right.
If 62% of Americans wanted obvious lies to continue to be told there is something wrong. If you want a direct poll to take on the decisions of the supreme court just say so.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Look at you trying to make a Best.Korea thread have deep meaning. Takes guts to try.I have learned from Kate from anime...Well there you have it, Democrats have a better show. Better ratings. People vote for the best stories, even if they know deep down it is all lies.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
that's really a problem with Democrat Supreme justices being power hungry and not stepping down before Trump got elected.You roll the dice, don't complain if you crap out.well yeah, this is just proving my point. The court should be free of politics, so if justices from either side aren’t stepping down when the other party is in power, then we clearly need to regulate this.
If the court is merely a running average of the political agenda of that last three presidential terms there is no point in having it, may as well just ask have congress do it.
Well it was unofficial precedent that every president gets one appointed per term
Once again:
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Do we know it's a problem?From 1973 to 2022, Democrats and left media respected the Supreme Court. After they ruled, Dems were quick to tell us that that ruling was "the law of the land" and that the decision had to be taken as authoritative and correct. There were no accusations flying of the SCOTUS being a body rife with corruption.This period, "coincidentally", was one where the Supreme Court was handing Democrats everything they wanted on a silver platter. It gave them Roe v. Wade.I suppose that’s fair. I’m not mad about the rulings tho, I mad about Trump abusing his power and appointing 3 justices. I didn’t think this was really possible until he did it, so I saw no reason to safeguard against it. Now that we know it is a problem though, we should do something about it.
I see a lot of "3 or more from the same president" in that list.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
I know that there is 0 chance that these pass, but in theory, are you in support of them or not?
I don't think they hurt anything (on average) and I don't think they help anything (on average).
Term limits aren't a solution for corruption, all oversight is just another avenue for corruption, and there is no chance in hell that congress is going to imagine some novel and reliable way to resolve questions of bias.
I like them. I think they will help prevent this super-majority that Trump has made from happening again with either side.
If the courts need to be ideologically balanced they're already broken. I saw nothing that would prevent one president from assigning multiple supreme court justices in a single term and if you evenly spread out the terms then that's two appointments per presidential term. Many presidents serve two terms. That's four per president which is more than Trump appointed and almost certainly enough to seize control of the court.
All this will ensure is an even faster collapse to pure tribal loyalty in appointees.
Didn't the Supreme Court Justices that overturned Roe vs Wade do so because their religion said it was the thing to do?That’s definitely a part of it. Maybe Im too optimistic, but I like to think that they also interpreted the law in such a way that made fetuses people.
No it's not part of it and they did not say anything about who or who is not a person. All they said (and this is objectively correct) is that the last decision (Roe v Wade) was crazy talk.
" secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" != "right to anything labeled as a medical procedure state and federal law notwithstanding"
Nothing more, nothing less.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I think I know a lot more science than you do, and one of the things I know is that hand-waiving isn't science.
Life wouldn't have formed if there weren't 10^25 planets in the Universe.
You haven't a clue if that is true or not. Let me be a little more specific:
You don't know the full range of possible life-systems (Earth is just one)
You don't know how many planets could support those unknown life systems
You don't know the frequency at which any particular or any at all life system might form from inorganic matter on any given planet (only 8-20 of which you have any interesting data about)
You don't even have a working hypothesis for the formation of the Earth life system which is also why you have no clue what the probability of it happening was (regardless of whether it happened or not).
Scifi speculation can be a lot of fun, but not when people think they're imparting scientific literacy while doing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Double standards (yours).Whataboutism.
= "a plot"Yes, it was a plot because it was orchastrated by one man and without that one man it would have never happened. That's the difference between January 6th and the BLM riots.
and the civil war is more like jan 6 than the BLM riots since there are those who claimed that one man caused it, but what about all those people who elected and supported that one man?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
*Queue the "oh yeah well you're unserious" response.*
You lost the debate, now you don't deserve serious engagement on the issue. If I pretended you didn't lose the debate then you would have no reason to cease pretending you lose debates and thus continue this very unhealthy trend of denial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
and they would crucify you for littering. They have a strong sense of communal responsibility.For example, Germany recycles 50% of its plastic
Created:
Case in point. 1 dimensional. Can't do analogies.Restaurants have bathrooms. Go there if you need to.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@Savant
I think we should commit a full blown Halocaust against the murderer and r@pist communities because I don’t want tax dollars going to feed them.Executions cost more money because of all the appeals.
because there is no will to kill them and no sense of economy in government.
This is like saying "government should build restrooms" then upon learning that they steal $100,000 per stall per year you say "restrooms are far too expensive, it would be cheaper to just defecate on the sidewalk and have the government clean it up"
What happens next? You guessed it, government steals $200,000/year per citizen to clean up all the shit. Guess it's back to $100,000 restrooms.
Can't imprison them, can't kill them, it's all to expensive just like housing (when government is involved), education (when government is involved), medical treatment (when government is involved), trains (when government is involved), infrastructure (when government is involved), military, social safety nets (when government is involved), retirement planning (when government is involved)....
I see a pattern. There is no reason to wring our hands about prices which are determined by a corrupt artificial market such as those created by government. I don't care about how much it costs with a 1500% overhead fee for government corruption and stupidity. Hilariously Underdog seems to understand that costs might be inaccurate for executions but not for incarceration:
So then get rid of the appeals. You get one trial; if you are found guilty, then you get killed within 2 minutes.
Of course I know he's either playing a stupid game or has a large dent in his skull so there is very little point trying to explain anything to him.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
You should stick to laughing at the biblical creation theory, you're not in any position to make abiogenisis look likely.
Created: