Total posts: 4,833
Some weeks ago a certain poster named Double_R explicitly denied that "denying a crime" was defamation. This is of course obvious, but at the time he was trying to gaslight people into thinking that Donald Trump said something else about EJC besides denying a crime that was somehow defamatory.
Well now comes MSNBC and their "legal experts" to make it very clear, that denying wrongdoing is in fact defamation (so long as you're orange).
"$91 million, based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of, I knew nothing about her."
The treasonous criminals impersonating officers of the court must be punished. Pardons and reversals are not enough. THERE MUST BE CONSEQUENCES FOR ATTACKS.
If EJC is not a public figure, and denying that she was raped is defamation, then sue me:
EJC lied. She was not raped.
Why have I not just defamed her?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Osama bin laden named carbon emissions as one of the reasons he destroyed the world trade centers.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, a voter decides what his vote will be. Not what other people's votes will be.I never suggested anything about deciding other people's votes for them.
Review the context.
This is the same mistake you people make about taxes and the consent of the governed.And what mistake is that?
Individual vs collective moral variables.
Not voting for someone is an individual choice. Preventing others from voting for him because you've decided he's an insurrectionist is not.
Congress has full constitutional reign to decide after the fact that your conduct is not acceptable.That is a theory, one without constitutional merit. If they had wanted congress to be able to remove at will there was no need to say "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".And yet they can.
and I can blow them up if I had a tactical nuclear missile, wouldn't be very constitutional though.
Again, if they intended for the qualifications to be so strict they would have used more than 8 words to define it.
8 words are better than the zero words used to justify abortion being a right or the privacy of one's bedroom being a justification for anything that may happen there.
Created:
Posted in:
Make everyone poor, then they can't afford sex slaves.
Well now I've seen every argument for socialism.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
best answer
Created:
Posted in:
This interview apparently happened a while ago, but I didn't see this clip till now. The last sentence from Peterson succinctly asserts something I have very often had to say in reference to this topic.
Created:
Unwillingness to gossip.
We surveyed society, let's see if they think critically.
The hell is that supposed to mean?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"I think trump is a child molester so send him to prison".Well "I think Trump is a rapist" works, that might work too.nope. the available evidence convinced a jury of his peers that he most likely raped a woman.
The available evidence was "I say so"
like what? Specifically. Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.When you move the goalpost, I will laugh at you.where is a facepalm emoji when you need one? You managed to prove that they do check to see if fraudulent ballots are cast, and that it is so few that it is totally negligible.
You asked for it: Ha ha ha
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@WyIted
I just read the bill.Where is it and where are the relevant quotes?
If only someone had found it and posted a direct link in post #4 of this thread.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Unfortunately he's only homo for the pussy. So limiting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When you're deciding whether one should be able to enjoy their most basic constitutional freedom, you need an extremely high bar proving wrongdoing to take it away.
but the right to vote is lesser?
Trump had not been found guilty in a legal proceeding then his conduct is essentially irrelevant to whether he should be considered by us to be disqualified from holding public office.And as ADOL said, if this is truly the case, then ADOL can simply declare any Democrat as unfit to run for any political office. At will.Yeah, that's called being a voter.
No, a voter decides what his vote will be. Not what other people's votes will be.
This is the same mistake you people make about taxes and the consent of the governed.
As it is famously said, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.
The law is also whatever congress says it is.
because criminality is not up to the whims of 2/3rds of an inherently politically motivated group.
Of course it is? Who do you think votes the laws into existence?
Congress has full constitutional reign to decide after the fact that your conduct is not acceptable.
That is a theory, one without constitutional merit. If they had wanted congress to be able to remove at will there was no need to say "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".
Did they expect that there would be no laws against treason or bribery? Of course not. They were writing a mechanism to convict people entrusted by the constitution with authority for these crimes. This implies immunity for if there was no immunity (from conventional charging) then you wouldn't need impeachment. However you would have the absurd condition that people hold office from inside jail cells and every time a small town gets upset they trump up charges against the highest offices in the land.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"I think trump is a child molester so send him to prison".
Well "I think Trump is a rapist" works, that might work too.
They said trump had 0 evidence of fraud.Very few even addressed evidence. The others created strawman evidentiary standards.I'm not sure what you are talking about.
You should be less sure what you're talking about because you haven't a clue.
It's been 4 years and there is still no evidence of fraud.There was and is plenty,like what? Specifically. Feel free to show me evidence of fraud. I am 100% certain that you can't.
When you move the goalpost, I will laugh at you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hitler, White supremacists and the opium trade are not very good examples of baseless imagination.
That didn't stop many, indeed a majority, from claiming those theories were baseless; and that is my point. It is irrational to admit that history has been a fairly long list of continuous conspiracy and then to assume that you live in a time without them.
Now of course there are tides in the scale and deviousness of conspiracies, and I thought I was living in a time of few major conspiracies but I was wrong.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If I studied for a thousand years, I would not be able to troll as well as you. *tips an enormous top hat*
Created:
-->
@WyIted
RomanticP.s. gave dude my number he informed me he took the morning after pill and then he blocked and ghosted me.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don't find it reassuring if that few think violence against the government can be justified.It's actually 33 million and I don't find it very reassuring that 1/15th of the 220,000,000+ eligible voters in the US - 33 million people - think violence against the government is OK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If one says, “Government spending should be cut, so cut welfare and social security”, then this is threatening and abusive speech to the poor and elderly who need this to LIVE (elderly are similar to these other groups).
if one says: Governments should tax
then this is threatening and abusive speech to everyone who relies on social production to LIVE.
All collectivist speech is hate speech. Change my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Impeachment is again, an inherently political process. It doesn't address criminality at allExcept for the "high crimes" and "conviction" part.Criminal trials address whether and to what extent the individual charged can enjoy his or her freedom.
Or be fined, or own a gun, or hold other positions which are conviction restricted.
Just because you can point to a word that is used in both doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Just because you use the phrase "criminality at all" doesn't mean you're addressing all shades of meaning of "criminality"... oh wait that's exactly what it means.
Also, Impeachment was already in the constitution when the 14th amendment was written. If that was the official way to deal with this issue there would have been no need for it.Except the impeachment clause is for POTUS and the 14th amendment disqualification is for senators, congressmen, electors, and rando bureaucrats....The difference has nothing to do with who it's for. Impeachment is a process by which an office holder is removed from that office for their conduct.
You're confusing contexts. Full context restored above.
You implied that there would have been no need for the 14th amendment if the impeachment clause was a sufficient check on POTUS. This does not follow because the 14th amendment was not written to check POTUS and that is in fact only one of many applications and one of the few with reasonable doubt as to its constitutionality.
This is very clear (as GP laid out): The 14th amendment is one thing. The impeachment clause is another.
The 14th amendment provides constitutional justification for congress to create a crime which removes people from office. That could not have been normal legislation because normal legislation can't contradict the constitution.
The impeachment clause is the only way to remove a president for high crimes and misdemeanors, and it has been reasonably argued that it is a prerequisite for any charge against POTUS (or anyone else the impeachment clause applies to) where the accused claims to have been engaged in official acts (and when won't they claim that?).
The only reason these two things are interacting is because people are claiming that they can use the 14th amendment based on actions which an impeachable person claims were official duties.
You need impeachment to convict an impeachable person for purportedly official actions. You need a conviction (and a law) to trigger the 14th amendment's removal clause. Thus you need an impeachment, a conviction, and a law about insurrection to remove an impeachable person for insurrection where the so called insurrection is claimed to be official duty.
You cannot impeach someone who is not in office.
You can't impeach someone for things they didn't do in office. There is no clause precluding the impeachment for actions taken in office after the term ends nor would it make sense for such a rule to exist, otherwise an impeachable person could merely cram all of their high crimes and misdemeanors in the last day so there would not be time to hold a trial.
If Trump engaged in insurrection after he left office
Correct, because after he is out of office there can be no claim of official acts.
The legal bar is far higher and for good reason.
That is a theory, one with no constitutional merit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The only remedy for crimes in general is violence.Correct. So when the authorities appointed to deal with those crimes are actively working to commit them, who is left to carry out said violence?
So when they said Donald Trump was guilty of a crime, that was inciting violence against the government?
What about those so called racist cops?
We know "fight like hell" isn't incitement because if it was democrats would be in prison over it.We know it wasn't incitement for the democrats because if you follow the same exercise I just laid out, it doesn't get there.
Oh they didn't disown protests, in fact they called them uprisings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well except for that time they said Hitler was going to invade east.
Oh and that time they said white supremacist had a secret club where they dress up in white bed sheets and call each other things like "grand cyclops".
Also the time they said the East India Company was getting China hooked on opium on purpose and would use violence to keep it that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The argument has always been that Trump's usage of one word in the middle of an hour long speech does not cancel out everything else he had been conveying to his supporters for the prior two months, as well as afterward.
"cancel" is quantitative. It would contradictory at worst.
So if he told people to be violent in every context for every purpose and then said "Do X peacefully" that would be a contradiction. It would be mixed messaging.
The only remedy for the crimes Trump was alleging to be actively taking place was violence
The only remedy for crimes in general is violence. If people followed laws without the threat of violence then there wouldn't be crimes.
he strongly implied in his calling for this rally that it would be violent
You could only be basing that on "it will be wild", and yet when pressed on that you say "it's not just that". Wherever I push, you retreat and reaffirm another assertion that you had previously retreated on. Like wack-a-mole, or bread dough. Useful as a fighting strategy, but in debate it's called a gish gallop.
he proceeded to give a very negative and incendiary speech which he then ended with "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore".
We know "fight like hell" isn't incitement because if it was democrats would be in prison over it.
It's almost like people have a brain of their own and don't need to be told to act a certain way in order to act that way.Then you don't believe it's possible to incite violence.
I believe violence can happen without incitement and that the guy on the banner need not be the inciter even if there was incitement.
Nancy Pelosi wasn't on the BLM banner, but she did more to incite violence than DJT.
Jesus did as much as anyone could conceivably do to incite pacifism. No message could be clearer, and yet there he was on the banners and lips of crusader armies.
The world is more complicated than orangeman hitler and his army of deplorables.
He had the duty to fan those flames under is oath to the constitution.I missed the part of the constitution where it tasks the president with inciting am attack on the US Capitol.
I missed the part where Trump incited an attack. What I saw was Trump informing the citizenry of an attack on the US constitution. Such information is one of the many ways to defend the constitution and he swore to defend the constitution:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's like a 130 kg man losing 2kg/year and saying "I'm starving to death".
Not there yet, not even close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
That the conspiracy theorists were more right than I gave them credit for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
If you refuse to explain you can hardly complain about misconceptions.I'm not complaining, just pointing them out.
'pointing them out' that's a bit strong. More like saying there is a misconception and then leaving it at that.
"You've got it all wrong"
"How so?"
"As if I could explain it to you just like that."
people chose to ask questions and understand that the practices exist in a larger theological context, they would understand that expecting simple answers is foolish.
Yea I've heard that one before. That's what they say when you asked how god can be one and three at the same time.
The same conclusion would be that jewish women have not always covered their hair?Even though it is referenced in the biblical texts? How can it be that a biblical practice is not mentioned in non-Jewish texts?
It simply isn't all non-jewish. I think it was jewish and non-jewish. An inherited practice, like circumcision.
Maybe they are not the final arbiter of what Jewish people did.
but they are a strong indicator given their origin and the lack of other evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
If you understood it you would have explained when I asked.You seem to think it can be explained glibly and concisely to someone who hasn't studied the laws and legal system.
If you refuse to explain you can hardly complain about misconceptions.
You can keep thinking it is some later innovation but the texts show your error.
Not any texts you have cited.
You mean Isaiah 6:3? Or do you mean Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who was also not 2000 years ago)?Is Rabbi Yehoshua a verse? I had no idea.
Har har har, so funny. Look if you don't want to discuss it anymore just stop posting.
You should update wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KippahYou shouldn't get your information from wikipedia.
I also shouldn't get it from books where people say that if they had married at 14 they would have conquered the evil inclination entirely. Can't always get what you need.
You are using the fact that there is no reference in non-Jewish texts to help you conclude that a practice didn't exist.
Yes
But women covering their hair is another practice -- if it isn't mentioned in non-Jewish texts, you should draw the same conclusion.
The same conclusion would be that jewish women have not always covered their hair?
I mean that might be true, but the evidence for that is not as strong because the excuse is from Genesis (a very old text); and the practice is found in descendant religions (christianity and islam).
If christian and muslim men wore caps all the time, that would be strong evidence that cap-wearing was common jewish practice (for men) at the time of divergence.
This is basic evolutionary logic.
Still I would use the same logic to draw an analogous solution: Christians did not debate heavily whether women HAD to wear hair coverings, thus it probably was not considered a commandment by jews at the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Impeachments are THE lawful way to deal with the crime of insurrection for a president.Impeachment is again, an inherently political process. It doesn't address criminality at all
Except for the "high crimes" and "conviction" part.
Also, Impeachment was already in the constitution when the 14th amendment was written. If that was the official way to deal with this issue there would have been no need for it.
Except the impeachment clause is for POTUS and the 14th amendment disqualification is for senators, congressmen, electors, and rando bureaucrats....
Except the bolded part of GP's statement.So by default to this date, Trump is legally innocent. Your weeks of contribution to this thread is pure partisan fanfiction.It always amuses me how Trump supporters cannot tell the difference between a court of law and the court of public opinion.
Let me guess. "Context" You decide what he really said, words don't matter.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
When California loses the near monopoly on tech and entertainment there will be no buttress left. Just them and the farmers they're trying to enslave. It won't end well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Instead of accepting that there is stuff you don't know, you insist on labeling it according to your pre-existing scheme.
If you understood it you would have explained when I asked.
He died 410 CE.and if you think that he invented a practice, that's great.
Moving the goalposts. Full context:
[ADOL] No photos from before the balyonian captivity, no. I inferred it from the silence in greek, roman, and christian sources. Anything the jews did, christian councils discussed whether it would be required for gentiles. Their writings are voluminous on those matters.So the Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss it as an established practice but because non-Jewish texts don't discuss it[ADOL] Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)Kiddushin 31a"The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully."
You were obviously trying to come up with an example of Jewish Texts from 2000 years ago discussing it (constant cap wearing) as an established practice.
You now try to pretend as if I was arguing that just because it was only written about in 400 CE that the practice couldn't have predated that time. Regardless of common practice, you do not have jewish texts from 2000 years ago discussing constant cap wearing as an established practice.
He is basing himself on the same verse that was quoted right beforehand.
You mean Isaiah 6:3? Or do you mean Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (who was also not 2000 years ago)?
It isn't a hat, nor a kippah, but a turban (see Pesachim 111b). So kiddushin doesn't say what you claim it does.
You should update wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kippah
Did I say that was non-jewish? I said that if there was something all jews did (so including Jesus & pals) they would have at least mentioned "So we're not doing that anymore cause we're so awesome"exactly -- so there is no non-Jewish writing about it, and yet you accept that it was a practice. Thank you.
I think you're confused. You asked a different question about women wearing hair coverings.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes I know you're claiming to be a student of Rand these days. Well enjoy the thumbs up while it lasts. Yes you have confirmed yet again that if you say things people agree with they will agree with you saying it (hold the presses).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
How have you not learned that ebuc is insane after all the time you've spent here?
Created:
Yes a work requirement can be fitting for the stipend.... welfare already has work requirements elsewhere so it's a functional established practice
So you can steal money to pay to people who have to work for it.
Sounds a lot like government employment already.... that's working out isn't it? Government services are reliable and affordable? (veterans affairs cosmic horror sounds)
Created:
That actually proves the opposite, it proves it is a science and not an art.
Under the premise that neural nets can only emulate science and not art?
I think it's the other way around if anything. Art leaves plenty of wiggle room for conceptual errors. Science does not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
It's not the size, it's the ownership and use. A city is not your house. In theory a man could own a planet, but this planet is not your house.but there is nothing in the Jewish concept about ownership
It's just a line that you can't cross on shabbot. It's got nothing to do with ownership, lots, use, just "because"?
"The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully."
He died 410 CE.
Unless you're claiming this was prophecy (in which case it's in the wrong book), it was not 2000 years ago much less pre-exile.
So Rav Huna thinks his hat is acting respectfully. Did god say "I find hats respectful"? That sounds like something men decided.
You never explained why Tractate Kiddushin 29b said that it was not a common practice for unmarried men to wear a hat.
I don't know off the top of my head (pun intended), but christians and muslims have both had traditions of covering women's hair.what non-Jewish texts do they rely on for that? Where is this attested to by non-Jewish sources from the time in question?
Did I say that was non-jewish? I said that if there was something all jews did (so including Jesus & pals) they would have at least mentioned "So we're not doing that anymore cause we're so awesome"
If it was something all jews did and Jesus stopped doing it, that would have been a point of contention with the pharisees at the time (sages) and those were mentioned in fair detail.
The christian reason for women's veils (as it was explained to me by a sister once) is:
"logic" = Rebekah covered herself, and she was someone god liked so he must have liked everything she did and we should emulate everything she did.
So exactly the same phenomenon of taking a snippet of scripture and reading bizarre overreaches of inference into it so that you can have something to make yourself feel holy. Maybe she felt self conscious. Maybe she didn't want to be leered at.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
It's not the size, it's the ownership and use. A city is not your house. In theory a man could own a planet, but this planet is not your house.Multiple city blocks cannot reasonably be considered private property (of a single person) or "the domain of a single person".really? I have a friend who lives on an estate which is substantially larger than a few city blocks.
There is nothing to debate because I have information and the person who posted it has none.
Well you haven't contradicted him in substance about the eruv line.
No photos from before the balyonian captivity, no. I inferred it from the silence in greek, roman, and christian sources. Anything the jews did, christian councils discussed whether it would be required for gentiles. Their writings are voluminous on those matters.So the Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss it as an established practice but because non-Jewish texts don't discuss it
Jewish texts from 2000 years ago discuss covering your head while praying. Not all the time. (Was my impression from when I looked into it before)
Do the non-Jewish texts discuss whether a woman should cover her hair once she is married? I'm curious.
I don't know off the top of my head (pun intended), but christians and muslims have both had traditions of covering women's hair.
It really supports the religion + lawyers = absurdity claim. The sheer exaggeration and unbridled pride of it. It paints a picture of exactly the kind of cycles of self-righteous obsession and recovery that I would have expected to produce a rule that you can't leave your house on shabbot (or eat a lobster).except that people who study the text understand the difference between legal requirements and random comments in the text.
They decide. Today it's just one guys boast. Tomorrow it's recommended. The next day it's required. Then eventually somebody spins some BS that allows the requirement to be bypassed (which was the OP point about eruv lines and water bottles).
Created:
If true, this 'proves' what I've been saying for a while. There is an art of rhetoric which people call "good debating" that has nothing at all to do with the truth.
Chat GPT may be good at getting votes based on emulating this style of rhetoric, but if it can do so equally well for contradictory conclusions it has very little to do with logic.
That... role playing game rap battle whatever, it's of very little interest to me and in so far as it confuses people and obscures the truly critical knowledge of truth-finding it is abhorrent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Did youknow that acres and acres of forest can be considered “private property”?
Multiple city blocks cannot reasonably be considered private property (of a single person) or "the domain of a single person".
Again, you are imposing your beliefsfrom the outside and that means nothing to me.
Why would you be debating it online if the evaluation of others meant nothing to you?
I think I had a similar impressionabout the kippot wearing. Jews did not always do that. They definitely didn'tdo that the last time Israel was a sovereign nation. Apparently it comes from asection of the talmud which is (again) concerned with shabbot.You insist that Jews did not always dothat. Do you have any evidence of that? Photos maybe?
No photos from before the balyonian captivity, no. I inferred it from the silence in greek, roman, and christian sources. Anything the jews did, christian councils discussed whether it would be required for gentiles. Their writings are voluminous on those matters.
It's also hinted in the talmud: Rav Chisda praised Rabbi Hamnuna before Rabbi Huna as a great man. He said to him, 'When he visits you, bring him to me.' When he arrived, he saw that he wore no head-covering. 'Why do you not have head-covering?', he asked. 'Because I am not married', was the reply. Thereupon, he [Rabbi Huna] turned his face away from him, and said, 'See to it that you do not appear before me again before you are married.'[23]
When I was confirming that quote I found this:
Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen, I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all.
It really supports the religion + lawyers = absurdity claim. The sheer exaggeration and unbridled pride of it. It paints a picture of exactly the kind of cycles of self-righteous obsession and recovery that I would have expected to produce a rule that you can't leave your house on shabbot (or eat a lobster).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.Lol, you can't be this ignorant. Congress has a process for it. The 2020 Congress literally had a trial over it.That was an impeachment trial genius, which is inherently political. The 14th amendment is a question of law. These are not the same thing.
When the supposed insurrection is claimed to be an official duty of POTUS it is because the impeachment clause is clearly the only way to hold claimed official duties to be criminal.
To be fully constitutional removing a president for insurrection (under the 14th amendment) and disqualifying them to hold office again (when the supposed disqualifying act was as an official and claimed to be official duties) then you would need:
A) To have defined insurrection by law (federally)
B) To impeach and convict on the behavior that fits the elements of the crime in (A)
C) To charge and convict of (A) in a federal court.
(C) may not be necessary if (A) allows for conviction by the senate as equivalent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But instead of addressing whether the dots connect, you decided to focus entirely on isolating words and arguing that those words mean something different. 'but he said peaceful!' you said. 'Wild =/= violent' you said. So I had to shift my focus onto basic communication and how context works.
No, you failed to make an argument and shifted to that all on your own to obscure the lack of merit.'
The meaning of words, sentences, and speeches do depend on context; but that does not mean the words no longer matter. They limit the range of interpretation (as is their function). Peaceful doesn't transmute into violent under any context. That is the English language, you don't get to rewire it by fiat.
Your interpretation isn't the plain meaning of his words. It's not how they were taken in the moment by his supporters...And yet they stormed the Capitol in the name of Donald Trump.
They tried to burn down the whitehouse in the name of a dead man who said nothing except "I can't breathe" (and "I took too many drugs"). It's almost like people have a brain of their own and don't need to be told to act a certain way in order to act that way.
If the capitol police (and the entire left-tribe) thought that there were only going to be one or two trouble makers and they could handle that, then Trump gets to make that assumption too.You are still trying to compare the Capitol police's failure to anticipate the full scale of the threat to Donald Trump's incitement of it. Wow.
No, I am saying there was no incitement and further saying that Trump didn't anticipate a need to say "peacefully" more than once in the speech because he was no more clairvoyant than the capitol police or Nancy Pelosi. This was to defeat the assertion you implied that he must have been inciting because he must have known what he was supposedly causing.
Even if I grant you that Donald Trump didn't expect his mob to overtake the Capitol, that doesn't magically excuse his concious decision to continue fanning the flames he created.
The flames were created by gutting american democracy and unpunished insurrections. He had the duty to fan those flames under is oath to the constitution. He has a right under the 1st amendment.
So yes, the blade cuts both ways, which is why they were both wrong. The problem is that the Capitol police did in fact anticipate violence, so even by your own fallacious logic Donald Trump should have as well.
but scale is apparently irrelevant when it comes to Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
The question is about the definition of "boundary" and "enclosed" not about ownership. This very often happens when people try to translate the Hebrew reshut hayachid (literally "the domain of a single person") as "personal property." But that's not what the term means.So, again, none of this has to do with tricking anyone.
I suppose I should also take it as granted that one must trick oneself first if one aims at tricking god.
You know the catholic church once convinced themselves that if people paid them to give absolution god would honor that?
No I don't know hebrew and I don't know what reshut hayachid means, but "the domain of a single person" sounds incompatible with "several city blocks". There is the spirit and the letter, but I know that people leave out letters they don't like and ignore extravagant interpretations they don't like while embracing the ones they do.
You layer that up for thousands of years and it's going to sound pretty silly. I have to agree with Wylted on this one point, you seem to be making excuses for the concept instead of disowning or rejecting the description of the commandment itself. Since you haven't used the simple out I think it's a good bet that you are caught in this web of some guy a thousand years ago deciding that the 4th commandment from exodus meant "stay in your house because you shouldn't even think about working around the property" (or something) but now you want to stop by starbucks and that's resting isn't it?
This is the religion section and I don't typically participate in here because my purely rational epistemology doesn't interface well with the scoped rationality religious people favor when talking about their religion.
Unscoped rationality (global scope) has this to say: God doesn't care what you decide is the "domain of a single person", he didn't care about the exaggerations of some guy 1000 years ago, in fact if he cared about any human behavior at all and was willing to empower prophets with miracles to convince people he would just tell you about it.
I only asked the question to check for self-awareness. Within the domain of the irrationality of religion this tension between the obviously man-made and the mystical fog that isn't precise enough to be obviously man made exists and has defined the difference between many parallel religious traditions.
To contrast with say eastern orthodox christianity: a real protestant's protestant won't claim there are any rules except those directly found in scripture and its up to each person to figure out what they mean (probably through mystical direct connection with god, good luck right?). Well now quite a few of them have decided homosexuality is just fine... and a long time ago they had decided actually pork, lobster, multi-thread coats were all no problem as well.
From my point of view the lengths they'll go to in order to explain away Leviticus is extremely reminiscent of how Wylted described the eruv line, only difference would be they're trying to explain away scripture and these NY jews are trying to explain away oral tradition which was clearly (to me) one of those phases of trying to prove extra-holiness by making up new requirements on extremely tenuous scriptural basis.
I think I had a similar impression about the kippot wearing. Jews did not always do that. They definitely didn't do that the last time Israel was a sovereign nation. Apparently it comes from a section of the talmud which is (again) concerned with shabbot.
When you have something vauge like "keep it holy" (or whatever it actually was) people will create layers upon layers of meaning, injecting concepts which clearly did not exist in the original until it's about hats and setting up ceremonial borders around city blocks.
This is of general interest to understand, it happens in secular interpretation as well as in Roe v Wade. The courts kept injecting their own ideas about what the last court's language meant until they had actually convinced themselves that the concept of abortion was at all addressed in the U.S. constitution.
Even things I agree with (morally) have come from absurd interpretations of the constitution, such as somehow being secure from unwarranted search and seizure meant anything that happens in private can't be illegal. That was literally the basis for Lawrence v. Texas. I am amazed at how shallow the rationality of the average person can be in contrast to the ferocity of their loyalty to the concept of the underlying documents (exodus or the constitution).
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
As you can see, much like the border; they're pretending there isn't existing legislation because they want different legislation.
Existing immigration law doesn't allow them to do what they want to do: give everyone visas so they pretend like everyone is an asylee and release them on parole.
Existing inssurection law doesn't allow them to charge Trump (I mean you're right a DC swamp monster jury would convict Trump of secretly being Hitler, but there is probably some language in there that requires I don't know a weapon to be involved.)
So they pretend like they need an insurrection law that is vague enough that everyone including your granny can be put away forever if 'needed'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I'll ask you a question -- assuming (though this is not exactly correct) that one is allowed to carry things inside his own house, can he build an extension on his house and then carry within that? What is the definition of this "extension"? Are there limits in terms of lot coverage, acreage, height, depth? And what constitutes a "wall" enough to determine that the newly enclosed area is, in fact, enclosed?
How about this: If you can't trespass people from it, it's not your house.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Magic. Oh uh I mean "context".Where in the hell is this left-tribe talking point coming from???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
What statement did I say that was untrue? That Eruv lines exist?Or is it that you just don't agree with the framing of these things?when you claim that Jews are trying to trick God, already you are starting with an untruth. When you claim that the explanations of Jewish ideas are the result of "being pedantic" you are stating an untruth. You keep making a claim about a bottle of water in a car. This is also untrue. Should I comb through your ramblings and find more things you wrote that are untrue?
Can you just comb through this eruv line thing?
Take it as a granted that there is no ultra central authority in judaism (like the vatican) so there will always be a few nutters (like calvinists and their predestination junk). You can probably resolve this easily by admitting there are some nutty jews.
Are there some jews who believe it's against god's commandments to go out on sabbath but if they imagine an entire city is their house they can still walk around and god is fine with that?
because that is accurately described as "trying to trick god".
Created:
-->
@Amber
Q1: if the election was actually being stolen through the legal system, what remedy is left other than violence?The same thing between Bush and Gore, the Court.
That's part of the legal system.
Fundamentally: If you can't elect a president you trust then what do you care of the opinion of a supreme court (who was appointed by illegitimate pretenders)?
The supreme court refused to hear any election cases, unlike Bush v Gore; but even if they had the only correct answer from any court is "fix the problem, do it over again." They disqualify appointees for the appearance of impropriety. If anything in this system should not tolerate even the appearance of impropriety it is election procedures.
Bush v Gore was not correctly settled. Florida courts said "stop the counting", and the federal supreme court upheld that and left it as it was. Florida got a little more serious about their election procedures, but it should have been a much much clearer message: Anybody who makes light of election integrity is going to waste a colossal amount of time and resources because courts will force you to do it right.
There are people to this day who believe that if the ballots had been correctly totaled Gore would have been seen to be the winner. That is unacceptable. It was a small crack then because people had trust in the system. Now it's a huge crack.
This is more important than anyone's opinion on the character or actions of Donald Trump. Don't pretend people would have accepted the supreme court ruling against election integrity. They would not have and they should not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What we all have to agree now? It was so much fun as a free for all. You can have your set of genuine office holders and I can have mine. This won't lead to civil war at all.
Stupid supreme court seems to want to avoid civil war. Just putting off the inevitable. (joke)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Is it your position then that the meaning of words can only be determined by those words spoken before or after it so long as there is no period sepperating them?
.... No, that is not correct; but I am really at the end of my rope here. You're trying to tip toe up on "context" and you can't even ask the right questions to do it.
The problem isn't the concept of context has you have endlessly tried to gaslight me with. It's that you have utterly failed to make an argument showing that the actual context leaves your absurd interpretation as the best one.
Your interpretation isn't the plain meaning of his words. It's not how they were taken in the moment by his supporters, his enemies, or the capitol police. Yet by all means say the word "context" again. Remind everyone that there are such things as coded phrases like "would be a shame if something happened to it" which are a threat in the right context. I'm sure that will cause everyone to realize that "it will be wild" has always meant "attack damn you attack!" just like the "OK" hand sign has always been a racist dog whistle and being on time is an invention of the colonial patriarchy.
Do you have an actual response on the point?
It's a strawman. It was a very scoped point I was making about an expectation of justice and you ignored all that context when you pretended that failure to prevent vs cause was possible in that scope.
If the capitol police (and the entire left-tribe) thought that there were only going to be one or two trouble makers and they could handle that, then Trump gets to make that assumption too.
If it's an unreasonable assumption the blade still cuts both ways. No matter the integral of scale and probability it cuts both ways.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not sure you're human. That's the issue. Some of the questions you have posted have been such bizarre non-sequiturs.
"If loving you is wrong, let me be wrong"
Like someone else said, sounds like song lyrics. Looks just like a misbehaving chatbot.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Courts said "we don't care" about all the election fraud cases and that was reported as "courts say there was no fraud". Fair is fair.no court said "we don't care" about election fraud.
Close enough.
They said trump had 0 evidence of fraud.
Very few even addressed evidence. The others created strawman evidentiary standards.
In a court of law you need to bring proof of what you alleged happened.
Like EJC did. "I said so" = proof
It's been 4 years and there is still no evidence of fraud.
There was and is plenty, and even more that the election was illegitimate due to violating laws meant to prevent undetected fraud.
Created: