Total posts: 4,833
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Created:
Posted in:
Do you listen ALOT to the opinions of any other high school dropouts?
IWRA is jealous. Pitiful.
Created:
I think people make too big a deal out of sex. The mechanics and consequences are simple. The instincts arise on their own.
The people falling over themselves to "inform" children about sexuality (especially the less than ideal variants) are just as guilty of irrational obsession as a bible thumper talking about masturbation making you unclean for seven days (or something).
The difference is this:
Parents will fight, die, and kill for their children which is why wise governments tread lightly around parental rights.
If teachers were assigning homework to read a book where a young homosexual gets sent to hell and begs for forgiveness too late, the kind of anger that would instill in the sexually liberal is the analog to what we're seeing now.
It's a completely predictable outcome with almost zero chance of success. It will be remembered as an overreach. 25% of those 30% identifying as LGBT will say they were conned into a cult, that they only did what they thought made them cool.
Most importantly it exposes that the movement is in fact a cult. Fighting imaginary injustice with obviously flawed tactics. Zero self-awareness.
There is one good thing that could come out of this though, correcting another obvious mistake: Government mandated curriculum of theft-funded schools. Of course it wouldn't end well. It should be condemned for the theft and the failure to teach basic skills not withstanding sexual indoctrination.
Created:
Posted in:
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Created:
Posted in:
TIMCAST. Very reputable
Better than most, I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You said yourself that the conclusion to the totality of Trump's words/actions lead to the conclusion that he was calling for violenceI did not. You did make believe with me like you do for Trump.Oh really? Let's see what that looks like. Here's you in post 191:
Look at you quoting. It's like you actually think you have something. Normally I'm the one who quotes and you pretend you never said anything.
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"we" I never agreed to that. I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)*If* elections are rigged, *then* violence is the only remaining option. According to you.
IF congress rejected the electors and states choose new electors there would be genuine elections again.
Thus elections would no longer be rigged.
And you are correct, questioning election integrity does not amount to incitement of rebellion. It is also absolutely not what Trump did - he repeatedly said the election was rigged.
Not conspiracy theorists, just asking questions. Well a bit more than asking questions: https://gop.com/video/12-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results/
have you ever heard of a wild but peaceful demonstration?
I've heard of fiery but mostly peaceful demonstrations.
His plan was to use the mob as a means of delaying the certification so he could continue working behind the scenes to overturn the election.
Uh huh, and they needed to be violent to delay the counting?
I have a simpler theory: Pence sees giant crowd chanting, thinks he has no choice but to obey the people, and reject the electors.
If you really believe the people who beat up police officers
All 10 of them.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Rejected.You said all immigrants were patriots. That is not an absolutely or generally true statement.If Patriot is defined as someone that prefers living in the US above all others
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They didn't come because they were in awe of the algonquian way of living and they were neither soldiers nor warriors.Is your fear that you don't want there to be a Mexican separatist movement along the southern border? Because there is a deportation free way to avoid that.
My fear is that you don't know what you're talking about because you constantly type absurdly naive categorical statements that are easily disproved.
You said all immigrants were patriots. That is not an absolutely or generally true statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You said yourself that the conclusion to the totality of Trump's words/actions lead to the conclusion that he was calling for violence
I did not. You did make believe with me like you do for Trump.
The feeling is mutual.You're a brazenly dishonest hack.
Everyone (including Trump) knows there are idiots out there. Everyone knows when you can rally thousands of people into a mob you're going to get some percentage of them to do outrageous things. That's the point. Trump knew damn well what he was doing when he called them all to the Capitol.
and Trump is a very stable genius for knowing how to manipulate mobs but also a complete moron for thinking if you tie up Nancy Pelosi a new election will be organized. It all holds together (not).
You can't be serious.
I am.
I've already made clear that anyone who was guilty of this should have been locked the fuck up.
But you don't think those who lied to them should be locked the fuck up. That is the double standard.
The left in 2016: The president received the most legal votes in the states he needed to win the electoral college, but he did it with the help of Russian disinformation which we do not respect.
You're rewriting history because history proves you have double standards. "Illegitimate" does not mean "Russian tweets make us upset". You don't object to electors because Russians tweeted something. They did fail to present a theory, but that was only to prevent scrutiny. As we saw in the 2020 debacle when there are a hundred theories around some will be stupid and easily disproved. They knew their base was brainless enough to not ask questions.
Created:
If insurrectionists were black, Republicans would not be calling them hostages. They would be dancing around a fiery cross like it was 1920 again.Some of the Jan 6 rioters were black.How many? Two?
One disproves the rule.
Created:
However, unlike Trump, at least this moron admits he was wrong.
You'd admit you were wrong if I had you locked up and hinted that begging for mercy and confessing your political sins might let you get back to that lucrative professional life you claim to have.
Good job on the title though. Surprisingly accurate.
PS:
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Created:
If that's true, that proves one thing: What they call grooming and what they call equal rights are two different things.93% of Americans support equal rights for LGBTQ persons.
Created:
Some of the Jan 6 rioters were black.If insurrectionists were black, Republicans would not be calling them hostages. They would be dancing around a fiery cross like it was 1920 again.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Even if they were, why do the billionaires donate to democrats?Because the billionaires agree with the dems who want to raise taxes on them (because some billionaires want to be taxed more). Bernie Sanders got plenty of large donations too.
So billionaires can vote against what you perceive to be their interests. Here is a bombshell: Everyone else can too. Your model for people's motivations is several of orders to simple to be useful.
The vikings moved from Norway/Denmark to Scotland/England/France. It wasn't love of the local culture and people that brought them.They were soliders. Migrants are not soliders; they are civilians.
No they were not. They were warriors. They were not ordered to attack, they were given an opportunity to seize land and riches and they took it.
People move to a land for more reasons than love of the preexisting culture. Want another example? Plymouth rock. They didn't come because they were in awe of the algonquian way of living and they were neither soldiers nor warriors.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Same is true for opposing Hilary Clinton.In Russia, opposing to Putin is bad for health and is linked to tragically dying under strange circumstances.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Even if they were, why do the billionaires donate to democrats?Globalist and billionaire I believe are synonymous terms.
If you move to the US from a foreign country, then you love America and therefore are a Patriot.
The vikings moved from Norway/Denmark to Scotland/England/France. It wasn't love of the local culture and people that brought them.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because the poor can only want to steal from the rich?The democrats want to steal the globalists to fund the healthcare of the people they deem to be American Patriots (defined as anyone living in the US and therefore has America as their favorite country to live in; otherwise they would live somewhere else, and this includes the undocumented).
That does not answer the question, and it is wrong on many levels.
The democrats want to steal the globalists to fund the healthcare of the people they deem to be American Patriots
The globalist movement is powered by delusional people who think they can run healthcare systems with stolen money and not have it become expensive and subpar (among many other futurist delusions).
American Patriots (defined as anyone living in the US and therefore has America as their favorite country to live in; otherwise they would live somewhere else, and this includes the undocumented).
That is not the definition of a patriot. Being born doesn't prove patriotism, nor does it prove preference. Failing to flee at the first opportunity doesn't prove patriotism, nor preference.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because the poor can only want to steal from the rich?But if this is true, then it would make sense for the GOP to advocate for raising taxes on those blue democrat voters and fund the healthcare of the red voters.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If it is a logically absurd message, then it is not a message at all.If it's not a message, it's not a message of violence.I just explained this to you. Did you read it? Are you even trying to understand it?
I understand what you are claiming. It's just a non-sequitur.
"If I don't think somebody is sending a clear and logical message then I get to make up a secret meaning and hold someone responsible for the secret meaning"
Since that doesn't make any sense what you're really saying is "I agree with you whole heartedly ADOL, I've just been lying this whole time" <- See how that works.
The message that was logically absurd is the idea that what he really wanted was for them to be peaceful.
No, that message is not absurd. The idea that election fraud without remedy doesn't justify violence is absurd. Angry / desperate people are often irrational and even a level headed person had some small reason to believe that congress or Pence may have provided a peaceful remedy.
There is something far more absurd than believing the end of American democracy is a shrug-worthy problem and that higher absurdity is that a military solution was possible for a swarm of unarmed people. Still some people are insane (or pretend to be for political advantage). There was that guy with the zip ties, what was his plan? Tie up Pelosi till she agreed to a new secure election? If people wanted to hold congress hostage they wouldn't have left the guns behind. If anything they were trying to create the circumstances for a Boston Massacre 2.0. If the media was a right-tribe propaganda instrument it would have worked.
The only general plan was to get to the gallery and scream at congress, something the left-tribe has done in state capitols before and since. This is obvious to anyone who was there and anyone who honestly reviews the mountain of evidence.
This is significantly less absurd than the BLM rioters cleaning out electronics store "for racial justice". Still the insane media propaganda smirked and said "A riot is the language of the unheard."
It wasn't as fun to quote MLK and Kennedy after Jan 6.
The difference between Trump's claims of a stolen election and every other clip in your little super cut is that not one of those claims leads to a call for violence.
In a letter from July 2012, he describes MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” as his favorite TV program.
Guess what Maddow talked about constantly in 2017?
Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co. [hodgkinson]
The reason this is entirely different is because even the democrats making this charge acknowledge that Trump is in the White House because legal American voters are still the ones who wrote Trump's name in
"Own 80% of the voting machines in the US, therefore it would be easy to hack them"
I do find it interesting that you're basically claiming democrat claims of illegitimate elections are irrelevant because they're obviously lying. Bold strategy, or what did you call it? False exculpatory. "Nobody actually believed what I just said did they?"
That difference matters, because it doesn't matter if he won illegitimately... He still won.
I'm sure that's what "not my president" means. Like Tim Pool says: Biden won the process
That's not what we mean when we say Biden didn't win the presidency. We mean the election was illegitimate, not that results weren't announced and treated as real by the people with guns. That is exactly what many left-tribers believed and exactly what the rhetoric https://gop.com/video/12-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results/ would lead them to believe.
These are two entirely different messages. Do you understand?
I understand you're lying and you secretly agree with me. This technique of "context" sure is useful.
Your claim was that the democrats did the same thing Trump is accused of by calling Trump illegitimate.
Yep, and saying the election was hacked.
I pointed out that if that were true one would think someone would have rioted on January 6th of those years yet no one did.
It's true regardless.
So of course, you bring up an unrelated riot over a totally different issue.
Left-tribe lies, left-tribe attacks government building.
You can try to split hairs and pretend it matters (or can be known) the exact motivations of each and every rioter. You have fun doing that, I don't care. I never said that the claims had to be identical. I specifically brought up the myth of racist cops as a counter-example.
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. You have no idea what it is and have no interest in finding out.
See this statement implies that I answered "I don't know and I don't care", but I in fact did not say that. Therefore it would be absurd to take the message at face value. Once again your secret message is "I see your point, right again ADOL."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Translation: There is no correlation in the data, but that doesn't mean we can't speculate up a storm and give a false impression. FOR SCIENCE!Data on genetic and hormone independent influence on gender identity are presently divergent and do not provide convincing information about the underlying etiology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well I can understand why you would vote democrat.AI will wipe out all the stupid people no matter what color they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I disagree.There are no true heroes and no true villains at this stage. Just two angry tribes flinging poo at each other.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
It's you Trump voters that don't have jobs.
Is that so? Well then you can see why we're upset then.
Are you going to sell the van you live in down by the river and give it to Trump?
It's like you saw the thread title and said "I can prove that point".
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Well, Republicans have gotten poor by sending all their money to Trump.
Yet they brag that the Biden campaign raised far more money.
Ah, I see, the elite (thieving) rich have plenty of money to give back to the hand that feeds them unlike the poor ultramagas who give their last dime to try to save the American experiment from the parasites sucking it dry.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They don't care about nominal tax rates if their buying power is going up. Their buying power is going up because they own the useless companies the government is propping up with stolen money.
It's not rocket science. Some of the rich are thieves and they're getting richer because they're stealing it (through government) from the rest of us, and that is why we're getting poorer (all in real value, don't give a shit about measuring in USD).
Created:
Posted in:
Was it the most secure election in history or not?Who were the Russians was it random business men or KGB ?
Created:
Posted in:
What if we extend the umbrella to include heterosexuals. Total victim equality?
Created:
Posted in:
ISIS on the other hand; they are left wing
You are trapped in the useless concepts of your own making. Nothing will make sense. You need to stop with the attempt at binary categorization.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No reasonable person can claim this man is not intentionally relying on physical violence as a means of getting what he wants.
You have proven yourself unreasonable in several instances.
The same cannot be said of any other prominent figure on the left.
There are plenty of figures on the left who have no problem with rhetoric far more violent than anything Trump has said:
"I would go and take Trump out tonight"
"I don't know why there aren't uprisings every day, maybe there will be"
"They're still going to have to go out there and put a bullet in Trump"
"Show me where protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful"
"I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the white house"
"For those of you who are soldiers, make them pay"
"Does one of us come out alive?"
You just don't care. They said violent things. Lots of violence happened (overall objectively 'worse' than jan 6).
You just don't care... because you have double standards.
If you were honest you would admit you could also fill in like 30 people instead of just "Trump".In both cases media personalities and politicians delivered the message and the people got angry because they believed it. In both cases the average believer would say they had good reasons to believe it besides hearing it from a politician.Yes, and every single one of them was taking the lead from Donald Trump.
You assume.
We've seen how this plays out; Trump makes an absolutely ridiculous claim (like 3,000 illegals voted on CA in 2016) and then right wing media outlets repeat it, the base grabs hold of it, so the media and now republicans treat it as a credible allegation, which gives it legitimacy, which leads to more people believing it.
Of course we don't see any of that in the left-tribe (lol).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If it follows that violence is the only remaining response to the actual theft of an election, and Trump has been telling his people the election was stolen, then telling them to "peacefully" make their voices heard is logically absurd.Yet that is what he did and no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise you will never mutate that "peacefully" into "violently".If it is a logically absurd message, then it is not a message at all.
If it's not a message, it's not a message of violence.
The only rational take away in that case is that he didn't actually mean it when he used the word "peacefully".
Well when Biden says "save our democracy" he means cheat. It's the only rational explanation. See how that works? I just get to say the opposite of what the guy said because of my own premises.... but what if Biden doesn't share my premises?
Ohhh wow theory of other minds. Think about it.
This is basic human communication. When someone is sending you a mixed message where 99% of what they have conveyed to you lines up with one takeaway, and 1% of what they have conveyed lines up with the opposite takeaway... The 1% can be reasonably written off as a misspeak or otherwise unexplained comment (or in a criminal context, an obvious false exculpatory).
If "They're stealing our elections" is the 99% that is the opposite of "peacefully" then democrats "our democracy is in danger" = 100% with no "peacefully".
No one was claiming in 2000 or 2016 that republicans were engaged in some nationwide conspiracy to steal the election by faking ballots.Their theory of the crime was ridiculous so they are let off the hook?No genius, they weren't alleging the election was stolen through some vast conspiracy.
That's not what the audio clips said. They alleged a more centralized conspiracy than the right-tribe.
Alleging that the home team lost because of a bad call by the umpire and alleging that the home team didn't actually lose at all but rather that the scoreboard was hacked and changed by the visiting team to reflect runs that were never scored... Are two very different things.
So russians hacking and saying the koch brothers hacked 80% of all election machines is more like saying the umpire was wrong than hacking the scoreboard.... but claiming they're changing election procedures allowing mail fraud is the opposite...
mmmmmm.....
Let's see that again:
"Stolen" "illegitimate" "Trump didn't actually win, lost, put into office because the Russian interference"
Now are they claiming those "Russians" weren't criminals?
"Deliberate fraud" 2000 AD
"Own 80% of the voting machines in the US, therefore it would be easy to hack them"
And different things get treated... Differently.Do you understand?
Do you understand that black people have more melanin in their skin? Different things get treated differently. Do you understand?
I understand some differences are irrelevant for some conclusions.
Again the left-tribe are worse because they took all the actions you call incitementAnd yet no one attacked the US Capitol on January 6th 2017. How odd.
They attacked the white house instead.
The question you asked which started this is why should Trump be responsible for protecting the US Capitol when "the left" failed to stop the BLM riots. Please tell me your answer is seriously not "the left started it, therefore Trump was justified to do nothing as the US Capitol was being attacked".Well I could point out there was nothing to be done at the moment, or I could point out that he offered beforehand, but no I'll go with the left started it. That's more honest.Well your first two are factually and logically fallacious so I would certainly understand why you wouldn't go with those, but thank you for being honest and making absolutely clear that you don't actually give a rats ass about democracy, the rule of law, or the concept of a responsible government being run by responsible people. Politics is nothing more to you than some WWE style culture war dick measuring contest between the patriotic right and the evil libs. It's utterly pathetic. But thank you for making that clear, it really says allot about this conversation.
I don't see anything worth responding to.
Well now you've seen it used on the summer riots.Yes, except the point being made in each case is entirely different, so thank you for once again demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what we're even talking about when we bring up the violence that occurred on January 6th.
no, no it wasn't a different point. You just have double standards as I've long pointed out.
Do you know what stochastic terrorism is?
A deep state concept meant to justify censorship. Kind of like redefining terrorism as "violence for political aims, except when taken by established governments". Or an old school analog would be "reactionary".
To the latter, there is no individual primarily responsible, to the former there absolutely is.Even if that was true, why do you think it matters?Because that determines what we are actually dealing with and what can be done to fix it.No individual is primarily responsible for the BLM riots because the underlying issue is one that has been heavily baked into the general world view of the black community and spread to other communities as well over the course of decades, which were then triggered by a real thing that really happened which called attention to those decades worth of grievances... So what we are dealing with is the unfortunate but natural result of a society in turmoil over a deeply contentious issue for which there is no practical solution.
and Donald Trump being believed by 70 million is unnatural? Only in TDS world.
contentious issue for which there is no practical solution.
There is a solution to lying: stop. In your case the solution is to call it stochastic terrorism and lock people up for expressing beliefs about injustice. That's what I pointed out.
The difference here is not arbitrary. Why do you think 9/11 or the Hamnas attacks drew international anger and condemnation, yet we saw nothing like that when thousands were killed in the earthquake in Haiti or the tsunami in Japan.
Black people are a natural disaster but Trump controls the redhats, I see interesting point of view. Whoops I had to drop it before I looked to closely it was just that fucking stupid.
We do not treat atrocities that occurred through natural means the same as those which were artificially crafted.
individual leader = artificial devil magic
cabal = perfectly fine
I think the deep state propaganda is much more 'artificial' than anything DJT has ever said or done. Examples can be found extremely easily. Of course in your mind a bunch of parrots saying the exact same thing just means it must be true, and apparently not only must it be true but it's natural to cause violence and nobody can be held responsible for that.
This is also why I take such issue with this constant reference to "the left". Right wingers love to talk about "the left" as if it were some person or an entity (left wingers do the same thing as well). They also do this with "the media". By painting this contorted picture of a made up boogyman it becomes much easier to smuggle in the notion of some artificial cause to our issues ("the left is lying about police violence, they're to blame!") instead of seeing the issue for what it actually is; an ideology that has taken hold throughout our society built upon the collective experiences of those who believe in it.
Evidence doesn't fit. Fake news comes in copy-paste waves. The various outlets are heads of a hydra.
which btw includes a lot of right wingers pretending to be BLM riotersYep, just like those antifa/FBI infiltrators.This conspiracy theory never ceases to amaze me.
Zero (apparent) self awareness confirmed.
So either the left-tribe rioters are professional criminals and know how to hide from authorities or there was no witch hunt which was so draconian that non-violent 69 year olds got remanded.Once again, the circumstances here are entirely different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you are far less likely to get arrested breaking windows at an AutoZone in Tulsa Oklahoma during the middle of a riot than you are breaking into the US Capitol. Do I really need to explain to you why? HINT: it's not because of your political affiliation.
When you can firebomb federal court houses and declare a zone (which you didn't own) no longer part of the united states and shoot anyone who you suspect opposes you, and not get arrested or even more telling are arrested but not charged it's political. When you can attack the white house and the cops defending it, and you aren't charged it's political.
I do defend violence against the government if it has a chance of working, but its your standards (or the lack thereof) that is being discussed.What's being discussed is why we are looking at the exact same thing and seeing completely opposite pictures. But the answer to that seems clear, you're a hypocrite. You sit here railing against the BLM rioters while saying out loud that you defend violence against the government of it has a chance of working. And that's not the first time you have endorsed an action that if done against the side you agree with would be sitting here also railing against.
Using violence against aggressors doesn't make you a hypocrite. BLM rioters & insurrectionists attacked government and civilians.
She made a joke.
Ah, so jokes exist. You know what else exists, metaphorical language. Do I need to give you the "fight like hell" montage? You're not doing too great on the montage front in this thread.
And do you know how we know it was a joke? By putting it in context. Not a single person who listened to her took that as anything else
How do you know that? It's not like left-tribers don't attack people. Individually and in groups.
I'm talking about him actually, forcefully, clearly, unequivocally, conveying to his supporters that physical violence is not acceptable?
Yea, you wrote it off.
No, no one has ever seen this, which is even more remarkable given that his supporters are notoriously more likely to issue death threats then that of any other politician.
Let me guess, the FBI told you that.
He knows full well what's going on yet not only does he do absolutely nothing to stop it
You mean besides all the statements you dismissed because you think it doesn't fit with the implications of the other things he's been saying.
he continues to invoke it.
He does keep unleashing people, I grant you that. Every speech has ended at some point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I challenge you to give me a single example of a concrete action Elon Musk did that was in any way usefull to society.
I assume if the answer isn't obvious you're working off the premise that just because someone runs a company and appears from a distance to be dedicated and closely involved with its operations doesn't mean they actually do anything.
In that case there is no point answering unless I had personal knowledge of just how Musk contributed.
I do think it's a questionable premise though. There are many companies in this world and it is unlikely that he is repeatedly involved in companies with ambitious and often successful novel engineering.
Created:
-->
@Mall
That's the best response this individual has folks.
I did not understand either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well if a billionaire says it, it must be true.
Hey isn't it about time that IWRA or FLRW claims Trump cut taxes for the ultra rich?
That's why they all love him so much... oh wait. Huh, maybe they know something that IWRA and FLRW types don't know. Maybe they get rich off playing the stock market with insider trading or directly owning shares of the military industrial complex.
Maybe there is a fascist economy growing like a cancer inside of the west. Maybe the solution is radical redistribution from the thieves back to the people they stole it from (seize and liquidate all government assets and all assets of companies with founding cash being from government).
Yea that's right, just because I'm an economic liberal doesn't mean I can't see a conspiracy that extends into the private sector. "Laissez Faire" doesn't apply to thieves or frauds. Eat the government scum!
BTW if I said that as a presidential candidate they wouldn't wait for propaganda to take me out they'd just kill me. I wouldn't give away the game until it's too late.
Created:
Posted in:
A new article was added to Peter Singer's journal of controversial ideas. I had some commentary:
Article originally found here https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/2/255
The ethics of zoophilia has been subject to little academic attention so far.
Ethics has been a subject of little academic attention since Kant. Sure people write books, but they don't debate or make any novel points. Ethics is a dead branch of philosophy in modern academia.
We might thinkat first that zoophilia is so obviously wrong that no discussion whatsoever is needed
It is tempting to try to appear compromising for the sake of endearing good will but this is a morally bankrupt premise to start from.
Nothing is by default wrong or evil just like no assertion of existence is true by default. It must be proven so by a coherent and objective moral theory.
Those who have addressed the ethical status of zoophilia sometimesconfess that most existing arguments for the wrongness of zoophilia are lacking.
Comically so, but that is the result when people have to look for an excuse to justify their disgust on the spot.
He attributes our hostility to sex with animals to speciesistprejudice.
I have come to believe it is more basic. Any sexual expression which is not normalized by culture produces disgust. This explains why homosexuality or race mixing once produced widespread disgust but no longer does.
Rudy takes queer theory as her starting point and uses zoophilia to questionthe demarcation between sex and nonsex.
I don't think deconstructing the definition of sex is an honest way to convince anyone.
This is not to say that zoophilia cannot be defended within anthropocentricapproaches. In fact, perhaps the easiest way to conclude that there is nothing wrong withzoophilia is to postulate that humans have a vastly higher moral standing than animals, sothat zoophilia is just one instance among many others of permissible use and exploitationof animals for human purposes.
Well you have to respond to the excuse they give, even if it is clearly an excuse and not the actual reason for their disgust. Having someone agree to the permissibility of bestiality because they don't care if animals suffer is a prime example of aPyrrhic victory. It is good that they won't attack people unjustly, but the right answer for the wrong reasons is not ideal.
Onemight take this to contradict my general claim that zoophilia is permissible, but this wouldbe a mistake: that zoophilia is permissible does not mean that all instances of zoophiliaare permissible, in the same way that the permissibility of heterosexuality does not meanthat all instances of heterosexuality are permissible.
This should be obvious, but when dealing with emotionally charged people one can never be too careful.
If there is no clearcut boundary between the ordinary love that pet keepersexpress and the romantic love that some zoophiles express, then why accept one and notthe other?
There is a clear-cut boundary, sexual excitement. You know it when you feel it. Even if there wasn't, beware the continuum fallacy.
I should point out that I am not interested here in the psychological and social factorsthat explain our ordinary aversion toward zoophilia.
It is a long standing tradition to avoid the inexplicable in favor of solvable problems :)
Bolliger and Goetschel claim that “one important aspect of the dignity of the animalis its sexual integrity.” By this they mean “unhindered sexual development and sensation,the protection from damaging decisionmaking by sexual exploitation of dependencies,and the protection from sexual harassment.”
Uh, this is the same human civilization that considered castration a necessary procedure for many animals?
there is an unwillingness to recognize the competences ofdomesticated animals for agency, cooperation, and participation in mixed human–animalsettings
Despite evidence constantly piling up in every household with pets and every farm with animals. I wonder if the people who say these things have ever known a non-human in more than passing.
The section on consent is as good as any I've seen. It echoes some of my best debates on the subject.
To be clear, finding out the moral status of zoophilia is not the same as finding outits optimal social status, so we might grant that zoophilia is morally permissible whilestill opposing decriminalization and normalization, perhaps on the grounds that it wouldultimately lead to a worse outcome for animals.
That depends on what moral framework connects the morality of an action to the ideal legality. I believe liberty is the only objective moral principle and under that framework finding out the objective moral status of something is exactly the same as finding out its optimal social status. Punishing victimless actions with violence or deception is an assault on liberty, itself a crime under ideal law.
However, because of the sheeramount of moral outrage around this topic, advocating for zoophilia should be done withgreat caution to avoid undermining the broader agenda of the animal rights movement andother social justice movements. There are obvious pragmatic considerations to downplaythe plea for decriminalizing zoophilia, and even more so for including it within the LGBT+umbrella.
The author may have no problem conspiring with "social justice movements" to change society but I do.
If the cause is just and the arguments solid there is no need to hold your tongue (or more realistically proxy anonymous keystrokes); especially not to coordinate with movements who are provoking a backlash over trivial matters and invented injustices.
Zoosexuals face real persecution. Real discrimination. The oppressors of zoosexuals have very real designs against the liberty of zoosexuals. The moral demand here is "stop abducting us", not "we demand you expose your children to our particular sexuality and then provide them species reassignment surgery upon request"
Created:
Posted in:
The law doesn't say "lie". It says "willfully retain"
(e)
Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
Biden meets the elements of the crime, according to special counsel Hur.
Created:
I named 5 people, and IWRA made some stupid snarky comment (no surprise there) and here he is back at it. You'd think he'd learn the gotcha doesn't work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If it follows that violence is the only remaining response to the actual theft of an election, and Trump has been telling his people the election was stolen, then telling them to "peacefully" make their voices heard is logically absurd.
Yet that is what he did and no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise you will never mutate that "peacefully" into "violently".
That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)Once again, context matters
Once again what you call context will consist only of you pointing out irrelevant differences and then hoping someone cares. There is no one here to care about your irrelevant differences.
No one was claiming in 2000 or 2016 that republicans were engaged in some nationwide conspiracy to steal the election by faking ballots.
Their theory of the crime was ridiculous so they are let off the hook? Doesn't work like that. They said what they said. They rejected electors.
Trump is arguing that the system itself was hijacked by nefariously intended criminals
"Stolen" "illegitimate" "Trump didn't actually win, lost, put into office because the Russian interference"
Now are they claiming those "Russians" weren't criminals?
"Deliberate fraud" 2000 AD
"Own 80% of the voting machines in the US, therefore it would be easy to hack them"
To claim these are the same is ridiculous.
Again, I did not claim they were the same. Again the left-tribe are worse because they took all the actions you call incitement with no theory of illegitimacy (fake ballots, election day delays as voter suppression).
The question you asked which started this is why should Trump be responsible for protecting the US Capitol when "the left" failed to stop the BLM riots. Please tell me your answer is seriously not "the left started it, therefore Trump was justified to do nothing as the US Capitol was being attacked".
Well I could point out there was nothing to be done at the moment, or I could point out that he offered beforehand, but no I'll go with the left started it. That's more honest.
Happy to help you understand what these words mean; unleashed here is being used metaphorically which fits because of the emotional state of Trump's mob. Again, he lead the charge to convince them the election was stolen, then he called upon them to DC. So by the time he directed them to the Capitol, many of them were already itching to attack. So in this context, "unleashed" is referring to the emotional state of these individuals who may have felt compelled to hold off till Trump spoke finally being able to do what they came there to do.
So they were on leashes because they wanted to hear Trump's speech... and when he finished his speech they were "unleashed"?
Guess he should have kept talking forever? Well Maxine Waters and in fact every democrat who ever made a speech, at one one, stopped speaking *gasp*, unleashing their minions!
Let's start by putting your question in it's proper context; studies showed that something like 93% of the BLM riots had no incidents of violence or property crimes.
I'm saving that one to the hard drive. Your own little "fiery but mostly peaceful" moment. If there was no violence or property crimes, it wouldn't be a riot would it?
Now didn't you say somewhere it would be "ridiculous" to claim Jan 6 rioters weren't being violent because most protestors weren't violent?
Ah yes, right here in this thread:
You sit here talking about peaceful people as if those who were peaceful cancel out those who weren't. Never once have I ever seen you use that logic when it came to the summer riots, because you know it's a stupid argument.
Well now you've seen it used on the summer riots.
These are not the same thing, not even close.
I've already explained how the insurrection at CHOP was worse, in very objective terms, recap: actual secession, armed soldiers, shooting people
To the latter, there is no individual primarily responsible, to the former there absolutely is.
Even if that was true, why do you think it matters?
To the latter, our democracy and rule of law itself were never endangered, to the latter it was.
It was danger to our democracy that caused Jan 6. It could have been avoided by following election laws and going above and beyond to facilitate poll watching, audits, and eliminating the appearance of impropriety.
Your concept of "the rule of law" is an abomination.
So at the end of the day you're comparing nationwide violence to an effort by the sitting president to hijack our political system. No, these are not the same thing.
I'm comparing violence to violence and you are desperately trying to make me understand how important it is that an orangeman is was only on one side of the scale so duh that's the badies.
You have failed to win on comparing violence so you're trying to compare motive. Pearl clutching attempted: FAILED
which btw includes a lot of right wingers pretending to be BLM rioters
Yep, just like those antifa/FBI infiltrators.
should have been or if they are ever found should be prosecuted and locked the fuck up
Well they weren't. So either the left-tribe rioters are professional criminals and know how to hide from authorities or there was no witch hunt which was so draconian that non-violent 69 year olds got remanded.
I think a mixture of both explanations is correct.
I'm not defending any of those actions
I do defend violence against the government if it has a chance of working, but its your standards (or the lack thereof) that is being discussed.
just pointing out how irrelevant this is to the conversation and how silly it is to compare an ideology to an actual sitting president and current frontrunner for the job again.
I'm not comparing an ideology to Trump, I'm comparing the left-tribe violence to the right-tribe violence and pointing out that your theory of incitement hardly leaves left-tribe leaders guiltless since they have claimed the same things Trump has claimed, made assertions about American society which could only be rationally met with violence just as Trump did, and in fact unlike Trump did not clarify that they weren't telling anyone to be violent.
The purported vice president Kamela Harris implied she would kill her political rivals in an elevator. Do you hear about that as often as you hear about Trump's joke about killing 'someone' on a street? No, not from the propaganda you absorb.
Yeah, that's because in our system of justice there is this thing you need to produce which is called evidence.
Guess what happens when you don't investigate? Guess what happens when you don't threaten associates with jail time to obtain testimony against your target?
ordered the evidence of their crimes moved from one location to another
ROFL
Hold on....
ROFL AGAIN
Biden moved his boxes of classified documents. oohhhhh spookey "moving evidence of crimes"
Here it comes again: ROFL
and ordered the security footage of their crimes deleted
Why did Biden's ghostwriter delete the recordings?
wandering around the US Capitol on camera and posting themselves on social media?
We'll wear skimasks next time, don't worry.
What about their text messages pulled? You think there weren't text messages at the CHAZ? We don't know them because they were never pulled because of "nefarious left wing shadow forces tilting the scales towards prosecuting right wingers"
ordinary citizens
Indoctrinated fascist-collaborators. I didn't see any CHOP insurrectionists on FBI wanted billboards.
I think most black people would disagree.
The evidence disagrees with anyone who would disagree.
Fill in that blank with someone ideologically relavent (someone besides Floyd himself or Shovin, etc.). You can't
Sure I can, it would be like a hundred people.
If you were honest you would admit you could also fill in like 30 people instead of just "Trump".
In both cases media personalities and politicians delivered the message and the people got angry because they believed it. In both cases the average believer would say they had good reasons to believe it besides hearing it from a politician.
Created:
Posted in:
Lie is such a strong word. Poor old Biden just forgot how many he had and where they were.So you agree Biden should be charged. *shrug*No, because he didn’t try to hide them or lie that he didn’t have any.
The law doesn't say "lie". It says "willfully retain"
Created:
Posted in:
Biden denies sharing classified information with his ghostwriter and denied that special counsel Hur said he did.
Based on the precedent of EJC v Trump he just defamed Hur and the ghostwriter. That CNN analyst (Daniel) was incorrect that Biden is entitled to say he didn't do it, that right is now obsolete. That will be $80 million please Mr. Former Vice President Biden.
Created:
When a person is willing to shrug off the fact that Trump tired to end American democracy
If secure elections = end of American democracy, then American democracy wasn't democracy in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Great, now show me the crowd of supporters who attacked a government facility
Why would it need to be a government facility?
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
"we" I never agreed to that. I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.
That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)
Because first of all, two wrongs don't make a right.
Responding to escalating violence/deception/breach of duty in kind is not a wrong. So it's one wrong and then a right.
Like say Putin sends a tank to shoot your house. And then you fire a HEAT warhead at the tank. That's not two wrongs. It's just one wrong. It matters who started it.
But I'm at least glad we agree that Trump was wrong here, so that's some progress.
I did not agree.
Regarding "the left", I'm sorry to tell you but "the left" did not hold any elected office because "the left" doesn't actually exist as a person or entity you can hold accountable. Show me the individual who wrongfully allowed neighborhoods or other buildings to burn down and I would be right there with you.
Mayor Durkan
The "right" doesn't exist as a person, but you people pretend Donald Trump is that person.
Trump is guilty of incitement (at least colloquially) because he primed his base beforehand, assembled them, and then unleashed them. There is not a single person anywhere on the left you can say this about, so instead you keep talking about "the left" which is a completely meaningless term.
It's just hard for me to lie as effectively as you people do. "unleashed" it's stretches the limits of my brain (which is accustomed to logical checks) to figure out what that is supposed to mean.
Looks like 4 links isn't enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo96_nfW_Qw100 false equivalences don't equal one valid example.
A hundred false denials don't remove one example. Each one of those is, what did you call it? "priming the base". Having a protest permit would be "assembling". "unleashing" still working on that, does it have something to do with telepathy? Or does the magic of "context" come in? Is the "OK" hand gesture white supremacist and using it means "Activate my nazi children!"
2. The "summer of love" riots are non analogous to this.
True, they're much worse. They attacked civilians and not just governments (making them terrorists). They destroyed property for the sake of destroying property (as opposed to trying to gain entry). They stole. They held territory in explicit secession from the US government for nearly a month, they did it with guns, and they shot people who penetrated their lines.
Can you imagine if that had been Jan 6? That they had brought a bunch of guns, and they stayed in that building till February 3rd? Shooting people in the mean time. What if instead of complaining about elections not being free and fair enough they declared that the union held no sway in DC (with large text)?
I can imagine all of this, but ridiculously the rhetoric would hardly need to be escalated since they were called insurrectionists and terrorists in the absence of all this the left-tribe had already done with the encouragement and cover of politicians and media propagandists.
Now imagine that after holding the capitol building for nearly a month, and shooting people, they were all allowed to walk away. Let's say they wore black-block and the FBI decided to just shrug. "What can we do, we don't have their faces?"
Then Trump called it the whole thing a "month of patriotism".
How you would react to that, that's how the right-tribe feels and felt before Jan 6, and it simmered. It still enrages me to think about. Your system is not my system. Your idea of the rule of law, is not something I want any part of or owe any obedience to.
Yet still, there were over 14,000 arrests, each dealt with on its own merits which is exactly how the law is supposed to work.
"Dealt with on its own merits" You mean like Joe Biden not being charged. Like Hunter Biden getting sweetheart deals. Like Clinton not being charged. In each case the elements of the crime were alleged and the prosecutor just couldn't bring themselves to recommend charges for such lovely sweet people. "They didn't mean to your honor, their hearts are as pure as the driven snow. Who can really say they haven't tried to destroy evidence when they heard of an incoming investigation."
I've seen what you people call justice and it makes me sick.
So, 14,000 arrests you say. The deep state goons were bragging about the 900 people sentenced to prison over Jan 6.
SHOW ME THE 14,000 PRISON SENTENCES.
Richard Barnett: 54 months in prison NON VIOLENT
Lonnie Leroy Coffman: 46 months in prison NON VIOLENT
Jacob Anthony Chansley: 41 months in prison NON VIOLENT
Cleveland Meredith, Jr.: 28 months in prison NON VIOLENT
Gracyn Dawn Courtright: 1 month in prison NON VIOLENT
SHOW ME THE NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING TIME FOR BEING IN THE CHOP/CHAZ.
The world is looking upon us because they can't believe half of our country is stupid enough to think what happened on J6 was not that big a deal.
They're mocking us for having the audacity to bomb other countries for their lack of democracy and the way our deep state uses coups as a tool and an excuse while clearly being no master of democracy at home. They don't assume the rioters are in the wrong. They sneer at the way the prisoners were forced into fawning political confessions because they always knew that Americans were just as corrupt as everyone else and they're pleased to see it proved.
Many people in India and Europe know English. You can go look for yourself.
You're comparing civil unrest all across the country over the way an entire race within our society is treated with an attack on the US Capitol incited by the President of the United States.
I'm comparing actions. If you want to compare motives saving democracy is a much better reason to get violent than the propaganda induced delusion that cops like killing black people.
They don't compare.
..well for you, I know; that's why you're going to ignore all the points of comparison I just made.
Again, the J6 arrests are dealt with exactly how they're supposed to be dealt with; on an individual level based on the facts and merits of each individual case.
Right.... trust the system... trust your juries... denying crimes is defamation... Biden willfully retained documents and his associate destroyed evidence but he's just too honest to have meant anything by it.
G T F O
This nonsense picture you're painting of grannies getting lost and finding themselves being arrested for sedition because they accidentally wandered into the capitol as the officers waived them is is ridiculous.
Yet also fact. Two tiered justice systems intent on political victory do ridiculous things. https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-breach/idaho-woman-69-gets-jail-time-after-needlessly-distracting-police-on-jan-6/
"Prosecutors say that when police offered to help her, Hemphill exaggerated her injuries in an effort to distract officers from more violent protestors."
It is a clown world of your making, you make it by twisting your mind in whatever way you're told to (Like failing to realize 4 > 1, thinking denying a crime can be defamatory, and ignoring the fact that Joe Biden willfully retained classified documents)
that is not how you make a reasonable case of coordinated wrongdoing
You are no judge of what is reasonable Mr. "Context means I don't have to give examples" "I can post a link describing four cases of voter fraud and claim it supports the notion that (secret) audits disproved widespread voter fraud" "Biden didn't destroy evidence" "News articles claimed accusations were made therefore it happened"
Your logic here is no different than that which is used to support every bonkers conspiracy theory throughout our society's history
At the rate conspiracy theories are being proved that doesn't mean much anymore.
Not a single thing on your list is remotely valid as evidence of conspiracy.
Your notions of validity are proven to be unreliable.
The only reason this became anything more than fodder on the dark corners of the internet is because it was propagated by the President of the United States.
Then if he accomplished nothing else, he accomplished that; and boy did we need it.
Right, and apparently this nationwide effort to steal the election for Biden involved massively different plans all across the country.
Almost like they weren't coordinated by some master plan, because the master plan was to open the door to small scale action.
Or, a far more reasonable conclusion
You are no judge of what is reasonable Mr. "Context means I don't have to give examples" "I can post a link describing four cases of voter fraud and claim it supports the notion that (secret) audits disproved widespread voter fraud" "Biden didn't destroy evidence" "News articles claimed accusations were made therefore it happened"
that the conspiracy theorists were just seeing whatever they needed to see in order to justify their accusation at the outset that "the left" was going to cheat and was now relying on ad hoc justifications to hold onto that belief.
What conspiracy theorists see or don't see doesn't make election officials lie on the stand about actions that almost certainly affected the outcome of elections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Nothing, he's just choosing a timeline that will come to pass before everybody forgets the challenge.
Since it's god he could have said "10 seconds from now".
It doesn't matter as we all know. The purported god loves us, has a plan for each of us, is willing to communicate it, but only by 5th hand accounts of prophets who died over a thousand years ago. Cause faith is a virtue you know?... but apparently it wasn't a virtue for all those people who were shown miracles and god (purportedly) said he was doing miracles to prove he was god.
The logic does not track.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
So he can never be a they. A she can never be a they.
Not without loss of communication efficiency.
Which is why if there MUST be a non-binary pronoun a new one would be better. However I won't bother to learn it, if it catches on it catches on; but in general I don't think it's something to indulge. People are looking for validation and resolution in the wrong places. If it wasn't for their blind submission to socially constructed gender roles they would never have been uncomfortable with being called "he" or "she" to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Billions of people have learned how to utilise smartphones, but how many of those billions know how the technology works?And how many out of 8billion and counting, will ever understand genetic engineering?
Increasing specialization explains decreased specialist knowledge better than decreased intelligence. It's easy for everyone to be an expert when knapping flint and hidework are the only major technologies (that's an oversimplification and there were certainly specialists in the neolithic).
How many of the 8 billion could have learned genetic engineering or microprocessors to an acceptable competence level given the right education and motivation?
I don't know, I suspect the number is high. Why? I've met idiots, but I think they're made idiots not born idiots. I've met many ignorant, same story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We can cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now we're centuries out from terraforming Mars (optimistically). Our theory morality and civilization is clearly less than perfect.Why colonise space with numpties?Wouldn't that be a backward step?
The existence of idiots seems to be universally agreed upon. The problem is that there is nothing like a consensus amongst the intelligent, even about what intelligence is.
To blame idiocy on genetics seems to me a lazy scape goat. Read the history of racism and you'll get the idea that people have a bad habit of attributing things to genetics without eliminating other factors.
So before we try to colonize Mars and before we even begin to consider curing 'numptiatus' by genetic engineering we should get a handle on culture and education.
How much of the worlds problems are caused by bad social theory and how much by bad genes? This is important to answer before you ship people out of the system. If you send them with what you think are better genes and a flawed cultural heritage you'll have just created another flawed human civilization. The inverse is also true, but given that on an individual level nurture is so much greater a factor I would be very surprised if you could fix human civilization by genetic engineering exclusively (or primarily).
In case it's not already clear: The (common) genetically doomed idiot is a theory that I am high skeptical of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So genetic modification would be a solution to this.
For some. The 'problem' is that humans choose their own values and they very often do it based on their instinctive payload more than anything else.
How many people do you know who would voluntarily (and permanently) give up their sexuality?
Now you can say "well you won't miss it if you've never known it" but you could say the same thing about eye sight or hearing. Most people enjoy being sexual creatures and they're going to want their offspring to have the same chance.
If anything any requests for asexuality will be greatly eclipsed by request for healthier and more rewarding sexual traits.
As I always point out, it's taken approximately 300000 years to get this far.
and 10,000 years is a blink in the evolutionary eye, but at the rate we can now collect and analyze information we're going to be able to anything we want (within the bounds of what biology has already demonstrated) in 5000 years (assuming no collapse of technical culture).
We don't need to wait till then to know what people would want to do though. They don't want "a limited colony of super-intellectual, asexual humans." Specifically the asexuality or anything else that is a denial of what the Greek philosophers might call "the good things in life". ("super intellectual" has nothing to do with asexuality.)
Humanity at large probably won't use force to stop it, but there is no way they'll all choose that path or tolerate any attempt to force them in that direction.
I am one of those people BTW, we could eliminate sexuality and then next taste, but the only possible motivation I see is a deeply irrational notion that the farther away from evolution's inheritance we get the more perfect we are. It's more like the more robots we are.
Perfection would be completing the pattern. Taking the good evolution has made, enhance it, mitigate the bad as far as possible.
Created: