Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
The people who you would discard have no problem hanging you by the neck until death.You mean in a sort of revolt?For your information, in Iceland there are no longer down syndrome pregnancies. Do you think people have spoken out? I doubt it.
Were there ever? Recessive traits are quickly eliminated from small gene pools under harsh selection (as in a thousand years ago).
They didn't need to sterilize people at that time, they starved, or froze, or got into a fight they couldn't win.
You identify everyone with a recessive disease and try to sterilize them today or then, then they and all their family get real pissed.
So is males murdering reproductive rivals.Well, I'm not sure whether a crime of passion is evil or not, but it's certainly an instinct difficult to control. Maybe we should cast it out by genetic engineering.
No, I mean if you have a significant population of males who know 100% they're not going to have genetic offspring it's going to take quite the indoctrination to keep them from just bombing sperm banks.
A stupid discourse on equality isn't the only analysis which concludes caution in regards to eugenics.Eugenics is a term that has been demonized by those who believe to have the moral authority to determine whether we can improve our genetics.
You don't need to commit moral crimes against liberty (forced sterilization) in order to improve genetics, in 50 years direct editing will render artificial selection of individuals obsolete. How about we skip the the inevitable war and your execution for crimes against humanity and just wait a few generations? I think our genes can hang on that long.
My impression is that you think eugenics is about genetic experimentation, which is not the case.
No I'm advocating for genetic "experimentation" followed by genetic editing regardless of the genes of the parent. This prevents the people who want to be parents from having a motivation to set a nuke off in your face.
Eugenics is about assuring that the newborn gets the best genes from parents.
"discarding people to breed", sounds like it's about preventing people from becoming genetic parents.
I can certainly argue that the selection procedure is a bit racist since women only choose white donors, but you have to consider that white births are in decline, so in the end it's good for the white population.
Not if it produces a bunch of low-functioning gang bangers and school shooters, which is exactly what you'll get with a single mother who works all the time.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sweden (the Nordic countries especially and Europe in general) has less public corruption. It allows them to have more public services at similar theft-levelsGetting rid of corruption is a far left wing idea (and it's a good idea).
rofl, really that's all you can say to that.
Then call me far left wing if you want, but so help me if you claim I'm contradicting myself because I don't fit in the bizarre categories you're making up....
Scandinavia probably has more regulations on health products than the US.
I doubt it.
Ok; so you support then left wing UHC; got it. Maybe you should change your libertarian label if this is what you believe in, because UHC is not libetarian.
You really shouldn't be trying to debate people online if you can't understand a conditional statement.
Created:
Posted in:
Right, and they can declassify documents telepathically by just thinking about it. Makes perfect sense …to a MAGA MORON
So you agree Biden should be charged. *shrug*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
There is nothing wrong about discarding people to breed based on their health history and skills.
The people who you would discard have no problem hanging you by the neck until death.
they don’t want shitty genes, it's natural
So is males murdering reproductive rivals.
unless you were a liberal with the typical stupid discourse of equality.
A stupid discourse on equality isn't the only analysis which concludes caution in regards to eugenics.
For example:
women becoming single mothers are using selected sperm from highly intelligent and athletic men
Sounds good to someone with the racist premise, that is the premise that genetic predetermination is such a large factor that no others need to be considered.
The problem is that the racist premise is false. Nurture (parenting, culture, education) produces far greater diversity of outcomes than genetics. It possible and plausible that the lack of a father in a child's life is a detrimental factor that outweighs all genetic advantages by an order of magnitude. Now consider how the child is raised. A single mother needs to work to produce value, stay-at-home mom isn't an option; again disadvantaging the child (on average).
Also, for every good gene there are more bad genes. Choosing the best set requires relative prioritization of traits and that judgement depends on knowing what kind of human is ideal and knowing how traits interact (which we don't).
Here is one of the more likely examples of that: By using sperm banks you're selecting for males from the top of hierarchies which also tend to have a greater concentration of sociopaths. Sociopaths will deceive to achieve their aims and that includes stacking sperm banks. There is no way to identify sociopaths from a picture and some stats, it would (and has been) far more likely through courting rituals to cut out such people. Note this is assuming sociopathy is primarily genetic and that (as almost always) is far from proven.
The evidence that exists right now is that the kind of cultures with a lot of single mothers looking for sperm banks are self-destructing while cultures where that is considered unhealthy are just fine and catching up (in technical culture and productivity) rather quickly.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sweden (the Nordic countries especially and Europe in general) has less public corruption. It allows them to have more public services at similar theft-levels.
The lack of regulation is a major factor as well. Stealing isn't the only way governments damage the economy, wasting enormous amounts of time on people begging for permission and the stagnating uniformity it creates are bad. It also biases the economy towards larger corporations as they can handle the overhead more easily with specialists.
Under the premise that the level of theft must remain the same in the USA I would prefer a nordic model for how its spent, especially if nordic deregulation accompanies it.
That does not mean that reducing the level of theft is any less moral or practical. The corollary is that the nordic countries would be even better if they didn't steal so much from the people. That includes the people being helped by these social programs, the period of time where they would be worse off is short, like 20 year maximum before general prosperity improves their quality of life compared to a high-theft government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Language is arbitrary. In most cases gendered language conveys no relevant information. "they" is plural leading to a loss of comprehension when forced into a singular role.
As I said there is no objective reason "he" should become "they" or "her", when you disconnect the gendered language from gender it goes from being mostly irrelevant to completely irrelevant.
"He" to "her" goes from communicating "We're talking about a male person" to "we're talking about someone who likes girly things... maybe you better not assume".
"He" to "they" goes from communicating "We're talking about a male person" to "we're talking about someone who might get upset if you assume they like manly things but has every right to like manly things regardless, what I'm saying is don't you dare assume anything you bigot", that is after the listener parses context and realizes there is only one person being referred to.
We could think of a thousand pronouns for every permutation of character and personality but that would be silly and inconsistent with most languages.
Created:
Posted in:
It's circular.
It is not.
You didn't explain anything.
I did.
You couldn't explain why it's good for me
I gave you the formulation. You're only failing to follow the logic because you haven't answered the question: What is good?
anybody to do anything any ole kind of way because the desire is there.
The good is liberty, not what other people do with it.
Then it appears that you're conveying restraints so it's a pseudo liberty.
Is gravity only gravity if there is one mass in the universe?
You're saying "Look there are points in space where gravitational pulls cancel each other out, it's pseudo-gravity"
You're denying a valid theory for invalid semantic reasons.
If it has some restraints and that's one part of it that makes it good then complete liberty is not good by your indirect omission.
Only if you choose to define "complete liberty" as liberty at the expense of the liberty of others. That's like defining "complete nutrition" as all the food in the world going to one organism and then declaring "So complete nutrition is not good"
That's why I say re-evaluate.
I always evaluate arguments. You have to make one, I've already evaluated every counter-argument I (or anyone I explained this to) could think of long ago.
See you can tell when a position has been well thought out because the answers to the questions aren't shallow.
Shallow questions get shallow answers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
There is no significance. They imagined themselves trapped by gender and choosing pronouns feels like liberation and power over their perceived oppressor (society).
There is no objective basis, what matters is the choice and how people react not the pronoun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It's time to replace politicians with AI congresspersons.
I was thinking parrots trained to say "No" and "Repeal it now"
Created:
Posted in:
Until your neighbors complain "it's ugly" "it has thorns"
Well why do you care about the thorns if you aren't on my property eating raspberries?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Asexuality and selective breeding is perhaps the direction in which humanity is heading.
Genetic engineering with tons of sexuality is the way it's heading. "selective breeding" implies, well breeding for one but also selecting genes as a whole based on individuals as natural selection does. This is guesswork compared trying to maximize specific biological functions by direct understanding of their chemical pathways and constraints.
but where humanity is at is that the davos futurists are being out bred by the average African/South American/Indonesian family. They don't need your artificial wombs, they're going to produce all the money and energy. Any vision of the future that doesn't either genocide most of humanity or convince normal people will fail.
Created:
I do mind.You lie. I have never seen you complain about blacks being treated unfairly by the two tiered justice system
I'm always railing against the flaws in the justice system that allow for victimless crimes and unequal protection. I'm also always railing against the democratic parties total hypocrisy, shadow racism, and pure stupidity.
You know democrats run all those cities right? Those cities with the drugs, gangs, tons of young black men being sent to prison by the kind of juries that invert the legality of defamation. Jurors like you would be I should think, whining and complaining about the poor black boys but the moment you get a little angry the racism comes pouring out your ears.
How many did Kamela Harris put away? For drugs? When she admitted to smoking weed?
When you finally do decide to mobilize about something you fall for lies (like every single BLM 'example' I've investigated). Instead of talking about the reasons police can act like petty tyrants all the time you decided to burn down a bunch of gas stations and steal a bunch of consumer items and pretend it was about justice. Nothing could have hardened so many hearts against a movement to reign in police than associating it with such obvious bullshit.
You're hypocrites. Your base and your leaders wouldn't know a common principle if you were being crushed by it. You want less blacks in prison? Look in the mirror and repeat these words "Maybe we're the baddies".
Created:
Posted in:
The fact is that Biden has met all the elements of the crime they're charging Donald Trump withThat’s a lie. You’re a liar.
Biden (allegedly) willfully retained classified documents.
That's what the law says. It doesn't say anything about needing to lie to the FBI or what not.
(Of course they're both authorized because the authority to classify and declassify flows from the oval office, but we're pretending that's not the case because: GET TRUMP)
Created:
Posted in:
Are you still working at Dennys?
We know you are a classist, any more prejudices to confess?
Created:
Posted in:
Viva Frei saying exactly what I've been saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESBq98-MUoM
Almost like it's "common sense" or in other words "basic stuff".
The fact is that Biden has met all the elements of the crime they're charging Donald Trump with (according to special prosecutor Hur).
Furthermore there was the destruction of evidence by an associate of Biden's after the investigation began, which according to some people is obstruction of justice.
They simply "decline to prosecute" and choose to construe Biden's motives as pure despite the exact same (alleged) behavior and the exact same elements of the crime.
This is what a "two tiered justice system" is. It is not and cannot be "the rule of law" for a rule with exceptions is no rule at all.
Created:
I do mind.Same actions, all the benefit of the doubt = two tiered justice systemLlYou don’t mind a two justice system when it’s one for whites and one for blacks, right?
Created:
Posted in:
He thinks he is making a dig but he's only igniting his own strawman and showing his true colours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Circular ok.
It is not.
Re-evaluate your stance.
No one has ever been able to debunk this logic. If you want to be the first, you'll need to do better than "think again".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"Does one of us have to come out alive?" - Kamala Harris
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
You can explain what good is. But why is it good?
Because good requires it.
Now if you're going to put restraints on this, it is not really all about liberty
If the restraints are from the liberty of others it's still all about liberty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm guessing that it will just naturally streamline itself, in response to evolutionary requirements...Such as escaping Planet Earth.
The way it's "streamlining" itself is some people are voluntarily castrating themselves, using contraceptives, demonizing the other gender, aborting, and telling everyone else it's great.
If you believe in genetic determinism, its very clear what kind of people will make up future populations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hey doesn't say you need to be a governor does it? "Self-executing" In fact if I see a Biden ballot I can just tear it up, he's not eligible after all.
Created:
Posted in:
If they deny it and you're denying them a right DUH of course you need a trial.Do you really need a criminal trial to prove someone served in the military for the confederate army?
Created:
enlisted others to destroy evidence and to lie about it before the FBI obtained a warrant to search his Mar-a-Lago estate.
While the ghostwriter admitted that he deleted the recordings after he learnedof the special counsel's investigation, the evidence falls short of proving beyond areasonable doubt that he intended to impede an investigation, which is the intentrequired by law. In his interviews, the ghostwriter offered plausible, innocent reasonsfor why he deleted the recordings. He also preserved his transcripts that contain someof the most incriminating information against Mr. Eiden-including his statementabout finding "all the classified stuff downstairs" in 2017-which is inconsistent withan intent to impede an investigation by destroying evidence. And the ghostwritervoluntarily produced to investigators his notes and the devices from which therecordings were recovered.
Same actions, all the benefit of the doubt = two tiered justice system
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Ok so what is the point of just having the freedom to do whatever?What good is it?
What is good?
Let's assume X is your answer.
You just answered X. You choose X. Let's call X your values.
Everybody has values, everybody chooses their values. A mind without values is a vegetable or a computer terminal.
Individual values can (and probably are) complicated. There is one part of each that must be there in order for those values to be coherent (not contradict each other). That part is the valuing your own ability to choose values.
There is no such thing a consensual rape, there is no such thing as a voluntary slave, and there is no such thing as a mind which does not value it's own freedom.
The question that converts this ironclad conclusion to social morality is the choice to value the freedom of others as equivalent to your own.
It is the only concept that gives me a reason to let you pursue your own idea of the good. If you don't agree with me on freedom, you are nothing but a threat.
Threats are dealt with by war, war is violence and deception, but moreover war is the opposite of cooperation. Cooperation brings prosperity, which may not be something you care about; but I don't hope to share values with savages who love chaos, poverty, fear, and disunity.
So what good is it? It is the foundational good of society and civilization. No other social good or virtue is possible without it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
The KKK and the nazis tried this. Something about the attitude of discarding people based on their genes seems to cause total war and unfathomable slaughter.
When we understand our biology well enough to know what would cause the improvements we seek we can edit gametes on a voluntary basis. That is safe, breeding humans is not for social and biological reasons.
Are you aware that many specialized breeds of animals have significant health problems and shortened lifespans (on top of being much uglier than the original)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
So you're all about liberty, freedom to do just whatever, is that right?
You figured me out. Congratulations. Surprisingly few do despite the name I choose.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Dont say deviant.The correct term is "valid sexual orientation".
It is sexuality which deviates from the norm. It may also be a sexual orientation, but it would still be an abnormal one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't believe any biotech is advanced enough to target an age group.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
That's for sure.You aren't being a rebel by being a homo or pro homo.
Nothing quite as pathetic as pretending to be brave by saying something that will get you preferential treatment and congratulations from nearly every public and private institution of any size.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Don't worry about it. Humanity is nowhere near extinction. Those countries with low birth rates are almost exclusively very densely populated. Let people do what they want to do.
Which is not to say that the population should drop and anything that favors that should be encouraged.... like say indoctrinating kids to think being a sexual deviant is cool so that 30% of them claim they are (they aren't... probably).
Created:
Posted in:
So tell me, who wants a civil war again? You sound pretty eager if you're goading people to take action.I take that as an admission you are a coward and not a true patriot
You know what you should take it as?
Your invitation to stop lying:
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]
Also,
Defamatory statements by IWRA:
What better place to start with the title of the thread
"A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person"
Man wasn't convicted, man wasn't found liable of rape.
LCC = 1, LRC = 1
As we've established, Donald Trump was not convicted of anything, nor was he found liable of rape by anyone (no matter how deranged). Also, according to the golden rule we must treat others as we would have them treat us, or more specifically judge them by their own standards. Since IWRA believes calling someone a liar when they told the truth is defamatory we have a special category here of IWRA defaming myself and other members of this forum.
[ADOL] simultaneously found not liable for rape but liable for denying that rape occurred.That’s a lie. You’re a liar. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422609]
Defaming members +1
Not Trump. Trump is a convicted sexual predator. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10380/posts/423060]
LCC = 2, LRC = 2
A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
LRC = 3, LRC = 3
I can just imagine all those little Catholic boysYa I bet you close your eyes and imagine “those little Catholic boys” all the time.That’s why you live alone. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423565]
Defaming members +1, Total = 2
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423576]
Defaming members +1, Total = 3
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423593]
Defaming members +1, Total = 4
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Therefore, say to the people of Isra’el: ‘I am Adonai. I will free you from the forced labor of the Egyptians, rescue you from their oppression, and redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. 7 I will take you as my people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am Adonai your God, who freed you from the forced labor of the Egyptians.
Exodus 6:6
Disclaimer: No longer christian, no dog in this fight, the bible is a book written by men of course it has contradictions. Just don't like obvious omissions in a narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
In your mind what would you say as to why people find incest disgusting as opposed to homosexuality?Evolution’s basic mechanism is “survival of the fittest”, and because incest is more likely to produce defective offspring with lower degrees of fitness
And yet speciation and breakthrough adaptation is often accomplished during population bottlenecks.
Small gene pools quickly purge damaging recessive traits. Large gene pools do not. A small gene pool (above a certain size) will only have a problem with recessive traits for a very short amount of time.
It's very rare for any species to fail to reproduce if incest is an option reflecting this fact.
Now contrast that to homosexuality if you want to actually answer the question. If incest produces defective offspring (again not really true in the grand scheme of evolution), then homosexuality produces no offspring and should be reviled as well.
Oh wait... it was; in many independent cultures.
So what was your theory again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The Constitution says we are innocent until proven guilty.Innocent until proven guilty is the default position for a criminal trial, ballot eligibility is a different kind of proceeding
That proceeding being pointing and screaming "INSURRECTIONIST!" and then they're ineligible (and if they're claiming to be currently in office they are no longer legitimate). 'Self-executing' apparently means no process.
Let me illustrate: Biden has given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
Bang. Did you see that? Self executing, he's not president (if he was before). Pretty neat huh.
I used the same trick on that pesky Colorado supreme court. They won't be bothering us anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
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"...
Well subtract the 'peacefully' part and you basically have Maxine Waters.
So what was your argument again defending his speech?
It's speech. It's supposed to be a free country. QED
2:38 p.m - 1:50 PM = 48 minutesThat's why I said official action. You do know he was the president right?
Guess he should have had attack helicopters standing by. Or maybe fair is fair. He didn't send in the troops to stop the summer of love riots, or the riots against his presidency in DC (the only time he came close they called it a fascist beatdown for a photo opp instead of saving a church from getting burned down). Why should he be responsible for stopping the riots that might act in his interest when the other side doesn't stop their rioters (indeed letting them run rampant for months on end)?
the fact is that there was no person or figurehead of any kind leading the way in that.
There were certainly figureheads. You just don't apply your theory of incitement so you have no idea who they are.
And then there's the actual riots, which no prominent left wing figure would defend
Looks like 4 links isn't enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo96_nfW_Qw
while Trump has made pardoning the J6 rioters a central issue of his campaign.
1.) Trump cares about justice, the left-tribe politicians don't care about their pawns.
2.) Nobody can be pardoned for the summer of love riots (or their bombs, plots to derail trains, etc...) because nobody was arrested because left-tribers don't believe in the rule of law
3.) The fascist crackdown against Jan 6 protestors has been remarked upon around the world. The imprisoning of people who weren't violent, weren't there, and the leniency shown when they renounced their political beliefs make it easy for someone who doesn't believe political violence was justified at that time to support pardons.
The election claims were not bottom up, they were top down. Trump started priming the base long before a single ballot had ever been cast, his claims then made it into the news where all of MAGA world caught on and towed the line no matter how baseless.
He started priming the base because someone (smarter than him) saw them gutting election law beforehand.
Now if this had been a baseless claim people would not have agreed with Trump. Just as they didn't follow him on the vaccine and they didn't follow him on abortion.
It was not a baseless claim. It kept happening. It got worse. Then they started throwing out poll workers, lying about pipes bursting, covering windows, shutting down voter info APIs (which were obviously public records), fighting audits at every level, making absurd claims (most secure election in history), lied to the public and sometimes on the stand, etc... etc...
You liken Biden 'stealing' classified docs as forgetting the roll of toilet paper at the bottom of the cart. If the shopper were election officials in deep blue controlled districts then they threw a tarp over the whole cart, pepper sprayed the receipt checker, and ran for it.
It even lead to a remarkable split screen where people in MI were protesting to stop the count while people in AZ were protesting to count those votes. Whatever they needed for a Trump victory, that is what it was.
Count the authentic ballots. Stop counting the potentially fraudulent ballots. The immediate remedy depended on the kind of cheating those desperate to GET TRUMP were using.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Sounds good, then we can nationalize their stuff. Communists can't complain about that right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
it looks like u r simply saying that society's views on sexuality depends on the culture.
Eh, more like society's views = culture in this context.
I'm saying culture is generally a self-reinforcing vortex. In other words, the reason most people believe most things is because they perceive most other people as believing those things already.
Very few people have principles, even fewer have rational principles (principles they can explain and justify logically).
In this context that instinct causes serious drag to any kind of pull on the equilibrium because outliers are shamed and ostracized even more than normal.
I'm also saying that if by some unpredictable series of events a previously unusual (but objectively victimless) sexual practice became normalized that disgust would die in the crib as it currently does for kissing and homosexuality.
if that's the case, a bigger question is... what should be our sexual standards, if any?
Wrong question IMO.
Society needs to agree on laws. The rest can sort itself out by free association.
The question is what should our laws about sexual behavior be? My answer is the same answer I give for everything: People have a right to liberty. If the behavior does not impede the liberty of others threatening force to stop it cannot be justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
In your mind what would you say as to why people find incest disgusting as opposed to homosexuality?
They would (and did) find homosexuality just as disgusting without cultural training.
There appears to be an automatic (instinctual) disgust of any sexual practice not in the cultural lexicon. For instance on-the-mouth kissing predictably disgusted people who were not raised in a culture where that was practiced.
It is interesting to see how the human mind tries to rationalize the irrational to make itself feel better. They'll always come up with an excuse when the true cause is just that it turns their stomach and they don't know why it should.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure why not? Immunity is apparently not a thing if you don't want it to be. It's a whole new legal landscape where you just have to pretend there is no precedent and you can do whatever you want.
Hell why not sue the jurors?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
You don't know that IWRA has green teeth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
lol, ok let's just ignore what the jury wrote and pretend. I say they said EJC was not raped or sexually assaulted and that Trump should make america great again.Actually, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
Created:
Posted in:
Lies you say?
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]
Also,
Defamatory statements by IWRA:
What better place to start with the title of the thread
"A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person"
Man wasn't convicted, man wasn't found liable of rape.
LCC = 1, LRC = 1
As we've established, Donald Trump was not convicted of anything, nor was he found liable of rape by anyone (no matter how deranged). Also, according to the golden rule we must treat others as we would have them treat us, or more specifically judge them by their own standards. Since IWRA believes calling someone a liar when they told the truth is defamatory we have a special category here of IWRA defaming myself and other members of this forum.
[ADOL] simultaneously found not liable for rape but liable for denying that rape occurred.That’s a lie. You’re a liar. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422609]
Defaming members +1
Not Trump. Trump is a convicted sexual predator. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10380/posts/423060]
LCC = 2, LRC = 2
A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
LRC = 3, LRC = 3
I can just imagine all those little Catholic boysYa I bet you close your eyes and imagine “those little Catholic boys” all the time.That’s why you live alone. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423565]
Defaming members +1, Total = 2
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423576]
Defaming members +1, Total = 3
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423593]
Defaming members +1, Total = 4
Created:
Posted in:
If you really believe the election was stolen, why weren’t you at the Capital? Are you a coward?
So tell me, who wants a civil war again? You sound pretty eager if you're goading people to take action.
In fact you may have just committed insurrection.
Created:
Posted in:
Considering the preponderance of the evidence, the jury delivered a verdict that first stated that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her
Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll? No
Civil trials can't find guilt: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/liability
Bringing us back to:
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]
Also,
Defamatory statements by IWRA:
What better place to start with the title of the thread
"A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person"
Man wasn't convicted, man wasn't found liable of rape.
LCC = 1, LRC = 1
As we've established, Donald Trump was not convicted of anything, nor was he found liable of rape by anyone (no matter how deranged). Also, according to the golden rule we must treat others as we would have them treat us, or more specifically judge them by their own standards. Since IWRA believes calling someone a liar when they told the truth is defamatory we have a special category here of IWRA defaming myself and other members of this forum.
[ADOL] simultaneously found not liable for rape but liable for denying that rape occurred.That’s a lie. You’re a liar. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422609]
Defaming members +1
Not Trump. Trump is a convicted sexual predator. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10380/posts/423060]
LCC = 2, LRC = 2
A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
LRC = 3, LRC = 3
I can just imagine all those little Catholic boysYa I bet you close your eyes and imagine “those little Catholic boys” all the time.That’s why you live alone. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423565]
Defaming members +1, Total = 2
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423576]
Defaming members +1, Total = 3
Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman and imagines little Catholic boys a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423593]
Defaming members +1, Total = 4
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Well it shouldn't take a continuous supply of rare Earths for lithium batteries, if people would recycle them we would eventually reach a point where there is plenty of lithium in the economy.
There is some reason to believe future very stable charge storage systems (batteries) might supplant lithium as well.
Hydrogen is kept under enormous pressure and I've never really seen advantages that justify that danger all all the corollary engineering challenges. I think if one seriously sat down to look at end-game costs and utility they'd find synthesizing propane from hydrogen in vast facilities would be better in every way.
Propane can be stored as liquid under (by comparison) very little pressure at normal temperatures. Methane (from oil drilling) can also be converted to propane allowing both sources of energy to be used (which greatly reduces engineering complexity on the consumer side).
Hydrogen can replace methane as delivered to static structures by pipe.
In either case this is merely an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source. We need giant nuclear facilities. We shouldn't wait for fusion, we should do fission to give ourselves a century of lee way to develop fusion.
PS. I want to be clear that the synthesis of propane is not exactly cheap and easy, it needs to be developed. I mean on paper it should be scalable. It's cutting edge see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01314-8
Created: