Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you are told. Its a bit like the police investigating themselves and promising you that if you had seen what they'd seen you wouldn't suspect them of corruption.how is it like the police investigating themselves? Do you think the organizations that run and monitor the police are the ones being elected?
Uh, yes? Did you think police departments were hereditary positions of nobility? They're either elected directly or appointed by purportedly elected officials.
There are plenty of records, just none that can be used to quantify mail fraud.so i will repeat, there is no evidence that any problem exists.
Oh there is plenty of evidence, but no proof because the enemies of democracy have made sure there is no way to prove it. Even if there was no evidence it would still not be a legitimate election because there exists a reasonable doubt as to whether cheating was happening.
You want to ban mail in voting to make it much harder for people to vote in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
I disagree with GP using the term "free" to mean "easy" but is certainly true that easy and secure are conflicting priorities in elections.
I don't care about easy as long as it is easy enough. It can be completely secure (via biometric blockchain voting booths) and easy enough to complete in an afternoon. Make election days national holidays. Allow four weeks of early voting. Problem solved. Anybody who has an entire day off and can't spare 20 minutes doesn't care enough about politics for their opinion to be of any worth.
thousands attacked the capitol in order to overturn the election results.
Potentially fraudulent election results.
That is a pretty large scale pollical violence.
Except when compared to the attack on the white house, the attempt to burn down a church which sent POTUS to a bunker, the insurrection in Seattle, the insurrection in Portland, the riots in a dozen other cities, the political assassination attempts, the cop shootings, etc.. etc...
but when shown trump quotes where he says he wanted to overturn the constitution they don't care.
They don't care that you tell them that happened because they know it didn't.
Suspension of the constitution is not abandoning the constitution if it was violated already. Did Lincoln want to overturn the constitution because he threatened supreme court justices?
He is willing to destroy everything they claim to believe in
Pretending like it hasn't been destroyed prevents its reacquisition.
For example nazis bomb London. Anyone who opposes bombing Berlin because "that would destroy everything we claim to believe in" is delusional. Peace is gone, the only way to get (a just) peace back is to start bombing.
When people violate a social contract (like the constitution) they can no longer call upon elements of that social contract for their advantage. This goes without saying. Trump just stated the obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I doubt the effectiveness of this strategy.
Created:
You consider a "plot to save the country" insurrection?It's the reason why the January 6 plot to save the country failed.So you admit it was an insurrection
Created:
Remember lads, policy is irrelevant when the choice is between subversive liars and honest people. Tulsi is acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
Cutting contact with loved ones, I wonder which tribe does that more often....Let me guess, you’re no longer invited to Thanksgiving
I'm afraid you guessed wrong.
The answer to the original question is: the left tribe, obviously.
Created:
Posted in:
Cutting contact with loved ones, I wonder which tribe does that more often....
Created:
Posted in:
Mail in ballots are sent to registered voters
Some of whom have died, or live in parks, or in abandoned lots. Many others are confused as to why they had to cast provisional ballots because the database indicates they had already sent in a mail-ballot.
It does take someone of lukewarm intelligence to put the pieces together. Don't worry you have as much time as you need.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
And elections can and are audited all the time.
So you are told. Its a bit like the police investigating themselves and promising you that if you had seen what they'd seen you wouldn't suspect them of corruption.
are you suggesting there are no records in elections? Because that is wildly untrue.
There are plenty of records, just none that can be used to quantify mail fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
There are people who identify bank fraud, but if there were no records they wouldn't find much.There are people whose job it is to identify and track voter fraud
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
My point is that there are all kinds of security policies in place to make sure our elections are fair.
That was not your point. You were pretending that a lack of auditability was equivalent to accuracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
This is dumb. You can't possibly know exactly how much fraud is occurring because voting is anonymous.lol, by that logic you have absolutely no idea either. You are saying there is a danger for something you have no evidence even exists.
Why do banks even keep records? If you didn't keep records you wouldn't know if anybody withdrew more than they put in, and there is no point being afraid of something for which no evidence exists.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If this is an act, you are a masterful troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
@WyIted
The beginning of election wisdom.This is dumb. You can't possibly know exactly how much fraud is occurring because voting is anonymous.
Created:
Posted in:
clearly you are too lazy to google the things she did.
Clearly you're afraid to make any claims knowing they will have extremely flimsy evidence.
I said that the white people running a slave colony did and ordered terrible things.
and I said that the same kinds (if not worse) terrible things were already common place in west/central Africa, and further implied that it was plausible that the europeans ordered less terrible things that were used to justify more terrible things by the especially cruel slaver drivers of the region (who were locals) because the locals had an especially cruel form of slavery normalized in their culture.
You want slavery and the atrocities Europeans committed to be the fault of black people.
I don't recognize a moral actor called "black people", I'm just pointing out your racist assertions are wrong on but one of the many levels they are wrong on.
You think "chatel slavery was a white person thing" is talking about racial predisposition?
Yes, that is what referencing a race means. If you say "watermelons are a black person thing" you're making a racial statement. If you don't want to make a racial statement locate the subject of your sentence and make sure it isn't a race.
That is not at all what I said.
Unfortunately for you, you can't edit it away on this site: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10231/posts/426488
Chattel slavery is mostly a white person thing.
It's precisely what you said. Ctrl-F.
man, pretty much your whole post here is wildly racist.
Said the racist.
How you could possibly think you were shifting away from racism is beyond me.
Europe is a region. European can refer to populations and to culture groups and one can talk about the merits of europeans and european culture without making an association with race. "White" (as stupid as the word is for indoeuropean genetics) refers to race.
Your whole point is that it was the evil black people who tricked the kind, loving white people into enslaving and murdering them.
No that is the mirror of your point within the domain of racist ideology. I am not racist and have not made any points within the racist ideology. You only perceive that to be the point because you are trapped in the racist ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
People who do something for a living recognizing a special ability in an individual doing that very thing is meaningful because of humility?
Mmm... doesn't quite follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I don't know about you, but personally, I'm prejudiced against "serial rapists" types.don't forget bigoted!I'm sorry if you find my prejudice against "serial rapists" types to be personally offensive.
I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for us all that Double R pretends he needs to explain English to me, but not to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Non-normalized sexual practice.So, procreational sex performed in a specific position is perhaps about as normal as it gets.Anything else is not normalized.Is that what you are suggesting.
Oh no, plenty of things are currently normalized.
It would make sense to argue that some set of sexual behavior (that procreates) has to be normalized because any culture where it wasn't wouldn't exist for longer than a generation.
Whether it's doggy style or missionary though, that's up to the winds of chance.
How long does it take for something to become normalized?
Depends on the influences that are affecting the change. There are plenty of examples of it happening in a single generation where the old timers still feel uncomfortable but they don't make a fuss where once they would have broken off friendships and openly gagged at a perceived deviant.
Or can somethings never become normalized?
Our species normalized cutting out people's hearts and eating them. Not a sexual practice (thank god) but the point is there is very little evidence that there is anything we won't accept if everybody else tells us it's "the way the world works".
Lets compare lesbian and Gay sexual practices that have been around for millennia, with the practice of using computer technology that has only been around for less than a hundred years.So therefore, should we rightly regard smartphones usage as a non-normalized and disgusting communication practice?
Using computers isn't sexual behavior.
Or should some people just keep their dirty little minds and noses out of other peoples sexual practices?
People should use reason to learn what emotions are healthy and which aren't. Disgust that limits the selection of your associations is unhealthy if that disgust is irrational. Disgust that motivates one to find rationalizations, irrational excuses that are hoped to mimic arguments, is especially detrimental. Disgust that causes one to violate the rights of others is vile and ironically most deserving of disgust itself.
People should also not provoke irrationality in others by doing things that disgust others when it would be only a minor inconvenience to abstain in those circumstances.
The solution is the same as always. To be rational. Reason isn't the absence of biasing emotions and normalizing everything won't make you objective.
So while my hypothesis has significant predictive power while being the simplest explanation I know of, it doesn't hint at any new tools except the vague hope that some people might realize that sexual disgust is an inherently irrational instinct and what they find deep down in their gut is a morally useless meterstick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
don't forget bigoted!I don't know about you, but personally, I'm prejudiced against "serial rapists" types.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Can you explain how Trump's "will be wild" comment was anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?
Yes
A wild event can be an exciting event:
Can you explain how "uprisings all the time" is anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?
Not one of these "is's" logically follows.I can very easily predict violence without endorsing it.I can very easily endorse what happened on January 6th without being the person who incited January 6th.I can very easily incite people to riot without inciting people to engage in an inserection.
I know. Each one of those is a logical gap between Donald Trump and the title of this thread.
You can hardly enter a thread with this title, claim for pages that someone incited something and act surprised when someone assumes you're talking about inciting an insurrection.I never said Trump incited something
Yea you did:
If any member of Congress spent months telling black people "the police in that station over there are killing black people, so on [insert date here] I want you to meet me next to [insert police station here], WILL BE WILD!", and then went on to hold a rally right outside of that police station on that date full of all their followers where he pointed to the station and said "you have to go over there and fight like hell or you're not going to have a community anymore", but then ended it by saying "peacefully and patrioticly make your voices heard"...I would absolutely hold that member accountable for inciting a riot, and so would you.
So what was your argument again defending his speech?It's speech. It's supposed to be a free countryYelling "bomb" on a plane is also speech, doesn't mean it gets first amendment protection.Do you have any other defense of his speech then since we agree that it was contradictory for him to argue he wanted them to be peaceful, and since the first amendment does not protect against incitement of a riot?
I've said, dozens of times in this conversation alone, that he incited the January 6th riots.
Riots and insurrection aren't mutably exclusive.
No, what left tribe leaders are responsible for has nothing to do with what Trump is responsible for.
In fairyland that might be true. In the real world codes of behavior are predicated upon social contracts. The most objective moral arguments I know of distinguish between people who respect liberty and the savages who don't. You owe nothing to people who won't respect your liberty and you owe nothing to a society which violates its contract.
So yes it matters if the KKK can lynch people and get away with it but if you fight back you get charged for murder.
Anyone who denies this is doing so to defend their double standards and for no other reason would they not care.
Tolerating double standards is not only unjust, it skews the perception of the truth and if allowed to continue in endless layers can obscure it entirely. Every time I point out how your rules would damn the left I make a powerful appeal to absurdity. If your "rule of law" can only be applied to political enemies of the left there is something wrong with your theory.
You started off engaging in that argument, but once you could no longer defend your position you started with the constant whataboutisms of the BLM riots.
Wrong, the first time I responded to you in the second line I wrote:
Is Donald Trump responsible for the violence that occurred on January 6th? Yes or No?
No, the people who rigged the elections and refused to do real audits are.
I have said repeatedly now that anyone who rioted or looted in the summer of 2020 should be locked the fuck up
But you have not said nancy pelosi or maxene waters should be held responsible.
The person who suggested there should be uprisings was dread wrong
She didn't say "should" and neither did Trump. She predicted violence and said you have to be ready for to throw a punch.
I have no issue calling out bad behavior by whatever you are calling in your own mind "My tribe". Can you do the same?
You speak as if we agree on what bad behavior is.
There is no point comparing moral frameworks until both are internally consistent. If one is not internally consistent it's clearly wrong regardless of any other frameworks.
That is why I always attack double standards first.
Trump was responsible for January 6th. Explain how he is not.
Causality can be divided into necessary and sufficient causes. A complete set of necessary causes is itself a sufficient cause.
It can be said that a person causes an outcome when they trigger the final necessary condition.
They are responsible for the outcome if enacting that trigger could reasonably be predicted to be the final necessary condition.
If the outcome is evil, they are morally responsible only if they provided the first necessary condition that was not within their objective rights to provide (i.e. a violation of rights).
Let's agree that a capitol police officer getting boinked with a shield is an evil. Not a very big evil in the grand scheme of things, but still an evil.
Now even if Trump had said "Go my minions, attack! Show no mercy!" That would make him responsible for the attack, but it would not make him morally responsible for the evils that result from the attack.
In order to know that you would have to know that no other necessary condition was a violation of rights. In this case the necessary condition of Jan 6 was the rigging of the election which was a violation of social contract. No cause that comes after that aggression can shift the blame.
Let me give you an example that you would probably agree with: Bombing Dresden. Was giving the order to bomb Dresden the last necessary condition which could reasonably be expected to be the last necessary condition before evil results?
YES
Is Bomber Harris morally responsible, was he in the wrong? NO
Why?
The nazis launching wars of extermination to the east was the first necessary condition which was outside their right to liberty. Thus they are and will always be morally responsible for every little boy or girl burned or buried at Dresden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
So anyway how is "serial rapists" not a "type" of person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Is there hatred involved just for speaking against or having a non acceptance of the L.G.B.T.?
Hatred is a specific emotion that is not required to have another emotion or to have an intellectual objection.
I do not think fear or disgust are the primary negative emotions I think disgust is.
Is there necessarily bigotry, involved just for speaking against or having a non acceptance of the L.G.B.T.?
Sidewinders absurd definition is wrong. Bigotry is defined as stubborn irrationality and is thus a fairly useless word. It just means "you're wrong" plus or minus some shades of meaning.
Is there necessarily prejudice involved just for speaking against or having a non acceptance of the L.G.B.T.?
Prejudice is pre-judgement. It happens when you presume a correlation between one category of people and another that does not exist.
It's not prejudice to assume homosexuals would be aroused by sexual contact with the same sex. Everything else is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If results = being praised by other so called experts then that means nothing.Yep, why would the people who do something for a living recognizing a special ability in an individual doing that very thing be meaningful when I can just declare myself to know better?
I don't know, do you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
For instance when you ask an expert why they were wrong about something they give you the logical error or the bad data that they relied upon. When you ask a pseudo-expert they scoff and walk away.So you judge expertise not by having demonstrated results in their feilds
If results are repeatable predictions of the non-obvious variety then of course that demonstrates expertise, well to be precise it demonstrates they are using useful theories which is a good definition of an expert.
If results = being praised by other so called experts then that means nothing.
Bullshitters are very good at articulating their bullshit too.
You would know, but the lack of substance remains.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Incoherent much?
It's hard to remember how complete your obtuse act is on this site.
[Sidewalker] Non acceptance of a certain "type" of person is the definition of bigotry and prejudice.
Let "type" = serial rapists
Sidewalker statement therefore implies: Non acceptance of serial rapists is the definition of bigotry and prejudice.
I thus appeal to absurdity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would like to see you explicitly state that I have not tried to justify any extermination in this thread what so ever or we're going to have another problem.Well, answer these questions:1. Did extermination happen?
No
2. Was extermination justified?
Of a general population? No.
Of human sacrificers, unrelenting slavers, scalpers, and rapists? Yes.
The rest of what you said is mostly nonsense.
You being unable to support your own claims does not give you license to pretend as if I don't believe what I believe and am a terrible person because of the non-existent belief you ascribe to me. This is very similar to your comments about the supposed rape of EJC. "X did not happen" is not the same as "X did happen and I'm fine with that."
It's fallacious, pathetic, and obscene.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you define Indian as someone registered with the bureau of Indian affairs. Not if you defined one as someone with 1400 ancestry.Lakota were around 5-10% of all Indians at the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Provide your arguments and explanation.Is there necessarily hatred, bigotry, prejudice involved just for speaking against or having a non acceptance of the L.G.B.T.?Non acceptance of a certain "type" of person is the definition of bigotry and prejudice.
Type = "serial rapist"
execute unit test.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's no possible way the Buffalo could exist if the Native Indians had a population of 100 million in the 1800's. Nearly every plains Indian consumed many buffalo yearly.The number is closer to 600,000 people alive back then.
This is another thing about talking about 'native americans' like a monolith. You're working of an image in your mind based on the culture you've been exposed to. American culture has a lot to say about nomadic plains tribes like the Lakota, Comanche, Cheyenne, etc.... etc...
Those populations were never the bulk of the populations of the Americas. In fact the plains were less utilized before horses arrived and the slaughter of the bison was something that was ongoing for five hundred years.
Native American civilization is not in the USA cultural zeitgeist, but there was civilization from Mississippi to the last terrace farm in the southern Andes. Some of the best crops ever cultivated were created and used by those civilizations and their populations were big (for the technology level and time).
They didn't eat buffalo, they ate corn and potatoes. Tons of corn and potatoes. Those crops were already everywhere they could be in the Americas long before Columbus (or even Norse) showed up.
It wasn't lack of food that kept the northern populations small and divided it was the fact that they kept killing each other. Humanity existed for hundreds of thousands of years apparently doing not much else but subsistence and you have to believe a part of that was the total lack of a moral code that allowed for the formation of large stable communities.
Anyway though, aside from a few rare examples of recorded census in Andean and Mesoamerican civilization it's guesswork saying how many people there were in any given place or as a whole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
You need to make your questions much more concise. The last one, people did not understand.
I have a theory that any non-normalized sexual practice invokes disgust. I think its instinctual, and if you could somehow suppress exposure to homosexuality for a couple generations I'm sure people would be disgusted again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Note that recounting of those atrocities was in response to you say europeans were worse. So you started the demonizing.I am not the one who tries to justify extermination of 99% of native America.
You are the one typing libelous falsehoods though. Again.
I would like to see you explicitly state that I have not tried to justify any extermination in this thread what so ever or we're going to have another problem.
100% actually. Nobody is alive from 1860. 100% death rate.Populations reproduce.
So they do, and so they did.
They dont reduce in number by 99% unless something exterminates them.
The population of the americas has not reduced by 99%. In fact it has increased significantly.
There were over 100 million native Americans before European invasion.
That's very high guess BTW.
How many were there after?
If you define "native american" as "a human being with ancestry inherited from the group of humans who lived in the americas in 1400" lots more than 100 million. A conservative estimate would be 500 million, it's probably closer to 750 million and rapidly growing.
If you mean specific genes (ancestry and genes are not the same thing) I expect the frequency has roughly doubled, so if you believe there were 100 million there are probably 200 million gene carriers for any given marker.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It's a force that comes to upset the world order whether it be the God's who misuse their power in the heaven or kings on Earth.
A revolutionary spirit you might say.
Also for anyone wondering, Loki is not a gay tranny but he is using them to bring chaos and make the United States as well as the world a better place.
Transexuals can't get pregnant, and he bore that stallion's foals; so I guess you're right.
So you're not gay if you're a male who can genuinely transition your gender before having sex with a male?
By that logic he's not zoosexual either since he was a mare at the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You didn't see me demonize native AmericansIn same comment:The hell they were.Some of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by the olmec descendant civilizations and their horrid blood cults which demanded regular and massive human sacrifice.
If recounting accurate history is demonizing, then you're just going to have to deal with some demonizing.
Note that recounting of those atrocities was in response to you say europeans were worse. So you started the demonizing. Disagree? Answer this: What in post #66 was "demonizing" native Americans?
Lol, yeah, population usually gets reduced by 99% by dying from old age or disease.
100% actually. Nobody is alive from 1860. 100% death rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Liberty says that if a homosexual wants to consult with someone to try and change sexual orientation (or anyone wants to consult with anyone to change anything about themselves) they have that right.Literally the point I have been making.
Then we agree on something, amazing.
given that psychologists have proven themselves clueless again and again I would say we don't need to answer that question because there is no science to consider.Right, the experts have no expertise. Apparently you're the only real expert
I would say I'm an expert and recognizing the difference between experts and pseudo-experts.
For instance when you ask an expert why they were wrong about something they give you the logical error or the bad data that they relied upon. When you ask a pseudo-expert they scoff and walk away.
So why was homosexuality considered a mental disorder of such severity that it warranted chemical castration?
Why did they believe that? What changed scientifically since then?
There is no answer because it was never a science to begin with. They gave a false air of scientific legitimacy to the prejudices of their culture then, and they are doing the same thing now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
They never united against european settlersArrows and spears vs guns, wouldnt really go well for them.
I blame the education system, but you're imagining a fantasy world.
Only the very earliest interactions had that kind of enormous gap in technology and those interactions could still easily have been won due to numbers and logistics.
In fact several times small colonies did piss off a tribe too big to handle and got themselves killed by bows and arrows.
From 1650 on every tribe that was anywhere near Europeans had at least some guns and many had enough guns to arm every warrior.
And I dont see why you demonize native Americans
You didn't see me demonize native Americans.
when Europeans at the time were doing much worse things everywhere.
The hell they were.
Some of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by the olmec descendant civilizations and their horrid blood cults which demanded regular and massive human sacrifice.
In the north constant raiding for scalps and involuntary wives (sex/pregnancy slaves) was the norm. When the Salish people were first encountered it was a society based around slavery. There is a lake in Canada called "the great slave lake" because it was used to trade slaves.
Simply, nothing you say justifies Europeans in attacking and killing 100 million people.
I am saying they didn't. The sum total of all the intentional killings by Europeans whether you want to call it war or massacre doesn't come anywhere close to that number.
That is a fake number created by propagandist and they do it based on the child-like 'logic' of "Well if they weren't killed where did they go?"
Answer of an adult with more than two braincells: They died of old age or disease. If you're asking where their genes went they are still here. Mixed with european, middle eastern, african, east asian, and indian genes in millions and millions of people.
Most of the cultures were lost and the remaining have been relegated like so many others before them. That is all that was lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am pretty sure they agreed on not wanting to be exterminated by Europeans.
The history of the native American peoples and how they interacted with each other and immigrants is far too complex to be wrapped up in politically motivated tropes like that.
They never united against european settlers because they never perceived an attempt at extermination (other than that one guy, every group has that one guy). That is because there was no attempt at extermination.
The interactions of the conquistadors with the full blown civilizations of middle and south america were completely different in motivations from the interactions of homestead settlers and semi-nomadic federated tribes in north america.
What they had in common was this: People with guns show up and had disproportionate military power, still they were very few. If the natives all united to kill them they would have been killed, but the natives wanted weapons and allies vs other native groups so the only real question was who was going escalate a squabble with the advanced immigrants and who would bend over backwards to enlist their help.
Cortez and his whole expedition would have died in sound defeat if there hadn't been a literal army of oppressed people under the aztec thumb just waiting for their chance. The wars of conquest he led were him and a few dozen Europeans at the head of hundreds of thousands of natives.
It wasn't a "mistake" to not kill the europeans instantly, if there had been a unified entity with which to make deals then there would have been one deal and peaceful integration would have been mutually beneficial.
There wasn't.
The reality was that all of the americas was a patchwork tempest of peace and war just like the rest of the planet. Europeans came from their patchwork of war and peace and were swept up in the currents of the new patchwork. They came out on top because their civilization was superior, but they never had plans to exterminate anyone or even keep secrets.
Why? Because europeans were also not united and there was no point trying to keep the secret of steel or gunpowder when other europeans wouldn't either. This is also true of the european interactions with India and the far east.
The incessant blathering about race and racial consciousness occurred later. The people who lived out these interactions cared about: Wealth, safety, religion, personal connections. Racism is an intellectual fad and has little to do with core human instincts. Pasting racial connotations onto interactions so universally human as "That guy stole my coat, I'm angry", "Shiny gold give it to me", "Your gods are strange", "You saved me from starvation, you're my friend now", or "You killed my father, prepare to die" is the fantasy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
That said, some of them just don't like the fact the debating system is based on acting up rather than, you know, logic.
Yea well if people could formulate the complex topics that need to be debated into well defined deductions they could be checked by a very complex program but short of that the only way to be more based on logic is to understand logic better (and care about it).
because ppl with no life here chooses to circlejerk rather than to publicize it.
You act as if anyone here as an advertising firm in their back pocket.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Which goes well with the previous theme of communism for Korea.mischief, trickery, and deception
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fine, I will open your link.A real Biden supporter would wait till Bezos says it's safe to look at Wikipedia.I sense your support wavering.
You gave me a good laugh with this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You met students these days? What makes you think they debate anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So your theory is that you can predict violence and that's not incitement but only when there is no date attached?If there is a date attached, now it's incitement?My god dude. Pay attention.This one particular point isn't even about incitement. Right now, we are talking about Trump's "will be wild" comments. Specifically, we are talking about whether those comments were an allusion to violence. That matters in this conversation because it demonstrates Trump's intent, which is an important element of whether he should be held responsible and to what degree.
Responsible for.... _______?
So no, this has nothing to do with predicting violence.
Of course it does. You claim that "wild" refers to violence, that "it will be wild" predicts violence and further that a prediction of violence is endorsement of violence and an endorsement of violence is incitement, and incitement of a riot is insurrection.
If you deny that you're claiming that then you were lying before.
would not have continued to hold that rally let alone tell the crowd to fight like hell.
and someone who expected uprisings every day would have told people to be peaceful instead of saying you have to be ready to throw a punch.
Every point of comparison, I win.
A comment spoken to someone and a comment aimed at someone are two different things.
A pathetic semantic excuse and a reasonable dialogue are two different things.
I explained in detail how Trump's statements were defamatory.
Without quoting a comment <sarcasm>impressive</sarcasm>
You never absorbed it because you don't have the capacity to handle [bullshit].
fixed
All you wanted was one statement that was defamatory on its own
Or a theory with precedent on how non-defamatory statements combine to a defamatory effect. You gave neither. You just said "context" and dropped the mic.
that's not how language works
It's how sane honest people work, but it's not how you work.
Context matters no matter how forcefully you ignore it.
What you fail to realize is that I was born in context, shaped by it, molded by it. My context is more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
And I've repeatedly denounced the actions of those who looted or rioted, so what's your point?My point is clearly and repeatedly to apply the standards you imply to the big picture instead of the narrow targets you intend.You can't apply my standards until you understand them which requires actually reading what I wrote, something you have no demonstrated no interest in.
You contradicting your implicit standards doesn't mean there is problem with my reading comprehension, it means you don't actually have standards because you're a feckless hack.
The fact that you keep trying to compare January 6th to the BLM riots proves just how uninterested you are in a good faith conversation. The two are not analogous to each other.
Pearl clutching attempt: Failed
They are analogous as they are both political violence and one was way worse for many reasons not the least of which is that one was an actual insurrection (declared to be in opposition to the constitution and continued existence of the united states and where territory was seized by armed militia)
It's the context of that violence that matters to this conversation
The context is you don't care to apply your definitions of 'incitement' 'insurrection' or 'rule of law' to the left-tribe, not their foot soldiers or their leaders, because you think they're the good guys. No shame in admitting it, just stop pretending you have some code of morals that allows to call Trump evil without knowing if the right-tribe is on the 'right side of history'.
Anyone who believes political violence is acceptable is not my tribe.Yet you don't consider them insurrectionists despite many meeting the definition you imply.Because they weren't trying to overthrow their government genius.
Insisting on elections because your constitution is being violated is not overthrowing your government. Declaring that the government has no sovereignty in a region and using weapons to enforce that declaration is the definition of insurrection.
And if you had bothered to listen to a word I've said, ever, you might notice that I've never called January 6th an insurrection.
Then incitement. You can hardly enter a thread with this title, claim for pages that someone incited something and act surprised when someone assumes you're talking about inciting an insurrection.
It changes nothing. Left-tribe leaders have used violent rhetoric and predicted violence far more often, with more clarity, and with no "false exculpatories". If Trump is somehow morally or criminally responsible for the behavior of right-tribe rioters then so are left-tribe leaders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Careful Double_R, looks like you're invited to think abstractly; prejudices don't translate.
If someone does something you think is unhealthy and they think is healthy, would you force therapy?
If someone does something you think is healthy, but they think is unhealthy, would you allow therapy?
(spoiler alert)
All abstract moral questions lead to vale analysis and value analysis implies liberty. Liberty says that if a homosexual wants to consult with someone to try and change sexual orientation (or anyone wants to consult with anyone to change anything about themselves) they have that right.
The only real question is what practices are regulated under medical professional standards, and given that psychologists have proven themselves clueless again and again I would say we don't need to answer that question because there is no science to consider.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Trans is now a medical and surgical possibility.
Not really. They do surgery, but the new equipment doesn't work correctly.
One day we will be able to do quality work, and on that day what they're doing now is going to look like the dark ages.
The Evolution of the species hey?
No more than foot binding, skull binding, or giant ornaments stuck in your lip.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bronskibeat
Well they are communicating and that is a community. You mean part of the category.Within the LGBT+ community there is a term called "spicy-straights," this is in reference to straight people who believe that being poly or having a queer partner someone how makes them a part of the community.
The LGBT+ does not want to expand by including people who are not either genuinely attracted to the same sex or are transgender.
The hive mind LGBT was a gestalt consciousness created around 1996 by psychic powers that at the time were poorly understood - Encyclopedia Britannica 2130 edition
Created:
Posted in:
Nothing in the constitution says "This is mostly ceremonial"the VP's role is mostly ceremonial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yet you haven't seen any evidence of Biden's corruption. LOLThomas has been taking bribes from right wing billionaires for decades. That is corruption. That is the right buying court decisions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"That priest" that I am assuming you are talking about was 1st a conquistador that helped to slaughter the local inhabitants of Hispaniola.let me guess, your ass?what? That wasn't a response to what I said. I assume you are referring to Bartolomé de Las Casas.
You just said that mother Theresa did terrible things. You know I'm never ever going to let you forget that right?google mother teresa controversies. She did terrible things.
Digging the hole deeper.
That the worst of slavery was born of west african culture like I said.let me get this straight. If a white person order terrible things to be done, and the person who carried out the order happened to be african, then africans are terrible and the white man ordering it is innocent? What is wrong with you?
What's wrong with me is that I'm rational and I live in a world full of people like you who would setup obvious strawmen and red herrings because they can't defend their assertions.
I said nothing about anyone being innocent of anything.
You've passed the point where my patience allows for further correction. Read again, if you have a more intelligent/honest response I'll consider it.
I think you're a million miles away from proving a relative racial predisposition to cruelty in slavery or anything else.when did I say there was a racial predisposition to cruelty. I said Europeans were the worst.
Post #6:
it wasn't some horrible fate. And it was absolutely nothing like what white people were doing.
You didn't say "Europeans" I said Europeans because "white people" is a race and thus a useless category.
You were racist, I shifted the context to be not-racist (by talking about culture groups and not genetic groups).
You really see everything in racial terms don't you?
Confession by projection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so your evidence of corruption is that joe biden emailed his own financial advisor?
Under a pseudonym right at the time his son was getting an inexplicable amount of cash in Ukraine, the same son that the so called "financial advisor" was also "being advised by"
if you knew more about this testimony you wouldn't be quoting it.
Witness? There are screen shots son. Of course you didn't read it. Wouldn't want to be contaminated by facts. Your 'fact checkers' handle the 'facts' rofl
The witness said he wasn't sure joe even knew he was on speaker phone and they never discussed actual business. It was just a father talking to his son and his son using that to make money.
How stupid are you trying to appear? cause you're overselling. No seriously, I want you to imagine Trump using this excuse. Now what do you think?
Then E Jean Carroll is an unreliable witness, but Manhattan juries don't care.ah gotcha. That is your personal opinion.
Apparently it would be yours, if you had standards instead of excuses.
thus confirming he had been lying
He confirmed nothing of the sort. You're assuming "his type" consists only of appearances and was based on old EJC and not new EJC.
Nothing like repeatedly lying to destroy your credibility.
You can stop anytime you want.
Well that core needs to be cut out and buried forever.so you don't want any upper level criminals to ever be prosecuted?
"but we gota get em" is not a sufficient excuse to motivate dishonesty.
Because that is the only way you catch the actual bosses and people ordering crimes.
It's also how you catch innocent people so I don't care.
Of course they have an incentive to lie. They will be put in prison if they don't lie.you're not understanding their deal. Their deal is to tell the truth. If they lie, their deal can be taken away from them.
If it could be proven to be a lie, then you probably wouldn't need testimony.
Except the house oversight committee. Oh and look, they have screen shots.screenshots of what?
The texts and emails.
I haven't seen any evidence of Joe committing a crime yet.
because he could kill someone on fifth avenue and you would make sure to close your eyes so you don't see it.
considering the last guy you quoted literally testified that he had no knowledge of joe biden ever committing a crime or being involved in Hunter's business.
The last guy I quoted was Hunter Biden. You said something about taking conversations seriously?
Created:
She has ZERO political experience.
Excellent resume.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Mother Theresa? That priest who claimed the natives (on Haiti) were being mistreated?mother theresa pretty famously believed that suffering was important to get into heaven. She certainly didn't have universal love.
Famously to propagandists. She helped a lot of people who couldn't give her anything in return.
"That priest" that I am assuming you are talking about was 1st a conquistador that helped to slaughter the local inhabitants of Hispaniola.
let me guess, your ass?
lol you "disproved" it by showing 2 people who did terrible things but also did some good things.
You just said that mother Theresa did terrible things. You know I'm never ever going to let you forget that right?
I think there is an excellent chance the the overseers whipping people are natives.Even if that were true, what would that prove?
That the worst of slavery was born of west african culture like I said.
White people ordered terrible things, and then terrible things were done.
I doubt the king of the netherlands (or whatever) was sending letters "whip them harder". Much more likely "make more product" and in the last 2 or 3 layers that translated to cruelty in the minds of cruel people from a cruel culture.
You think the white people aren't monsters in this scenario?
I think you're a million miles away from proving a relative racial predisposition to cruelty in slavery or anything else.
Just because there are lesser evils and greater evils among european slavers does not make the european slavers less evil.
The fact that European civilization was the first to insist on liberty makes it less evil than civilizations which did not.
There was never a widespread practice of dismembering anyone in Europe or European colonies.again, read about haiti.
Give me an original source.
Created: