Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
You do need a reason to condemn something.No I do not.
Well at least you admit it. There is by definition nothing to discuss with confessed irrationality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
I dont think that bestiality is wrong.Okay. Hmmm....Your thinking is definitely wrong.
Hint: It's not wrong by default. You do need a reason to condemn something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
I think an interesting argument is whether the animal consents to it.
Interesting only in so far as the obvious is made controversial by virtue of it being a convenient excuse for unregulated disgust.
Nobody asks whether a dog can consent to paragliding, they presume themselves and the dog's human companion competent to assess body language and determine "Yes" or "No".
For example. The animal fucking you instead of you fucking the animal
That is not a difference in capacity to consent it is a difference of doubt of the state of mind.
If a active male can consent, so can a passive female. There is no reason to suspect that cognition is highly sexually dimorphic. It simply means more caution in ascertaining consent is warranted.
Created:
Also anyone who thinks it ends at the US supreme court saying "no no, you have to convict of insurrection first" is the end is fooling themselves.
A) the insurrectionist so called judges will just order the election procedures rigged in other ways, you know like reading comprehension tests for blacks except somehow it just becomes very very hard for rural citizens to vote
B) They'll convict Trump of anything they have to in DC
C) The only possible response from the right-tribe will be to start convicting left-tribe candidates of insurrection in Texas, Florida, and West Virginia.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I see you are back.
Probably not for long. The long predicted (by Tim Pool) beginning of the end of the republic has arrived so I thought I would remind the few people here of the inevitable consequences.
BTW Swagnarok above is being extremely optimistic. Yes removing Colorado's electors just before the election would ensure that nobody tries to pull this shit again. It would also cause a civil war within 8 months.
It would be absurd for the Colorado insurrectionists to remove Trump from the primary and not the general. Anyone who accepts the logic of "Well they tend to vote blue so who cares whether the people of the state actually vote" should think it through to the logical conclusion. What happens when opposing candidates appear only on so called "swing states"? That's right the supreme court of swing states decide the makeup of the federal government. Who controls the swing state courts? The governors, and they can be voted on? Only in round 1. After that the courts decide who gets to be governor.
You think either side is going to tolerate national (and overbearing) policy being decided by courts rigging their own appointments?
Everything that follows is what they called "forced moves" in Go and Chess. Defeat or civil war are the options and no one is going to back down. Saddest part is that the lunatics who pulled the trigger may just be stupid enough to not realize what they've done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You can always buy a hooker or Slovenian sex worker.
You can always cut out your gonads, but that doesn't make sex wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
is interspecies sex outside of humans even a thing?
Yes, there is video proof. It shouldn't surprise anyone that understands evolution results in blunt instruments so much of the time.
"A male snow monkey has been observed attempting to have sex with female sika deer on Japan's Yakushima Island, in an unusual example of interspecies mating behaviour. It is only the second recorded example of sexual relations between two distantly related species."
Maybe the second time they cared enough to record. I have five examples on my hard drive.
Inter-species interactions other than fighting and threatening to fight are generally rare. Humans are almost always the ones who create a situation where different species are in the same herd/pack dynamic and when that happens the natural outcome is sexual advance.
It's interesting you note monkeys, because our fellow primates (monkeys) are one of the few other animals that have been observed forming strong alliances with other species, i.e. monkeys + dogs; and I guarantee you they show interest in each other.
Created:
The supreme court of Colorado just committed insurrection. Thus they can no longer hold office and are no longer judges. Any further ruling from them is the impersonation of an officer of the court and a felony. Any attempt to enforce this ruling is similarly insurrection.
You can't win a war if the enemy is allowed to make effective moves you won't.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Are you actually going to deny Trump’s routine claims of victimhood?
I'm denying that the "big problem" with destroying American democracy is that it might validate Trump's claims of victim hood.
Look back at your own posts, just a few ago you were threatening civil war over the idea that someone could be ineligible
I'd threaten war over far less, I was predicting war because a hundred million people with guns will agree with me this time.
Had Trump been successful in preventing Obama from becoming president due to questions of eligibility, would you likewise take up arms against the government?
I would take up arms against the government the moment it becomes viable and the aftermath has a decent chance of being more liberal. If you're asking if preventing someone from running because they aren't natural born means the US democracy is dead: no... unless the claim is that at the arbitrary whim of bureaucrats people can be declared too young or not natural born citizens as they are claiming about the 14th amendment.
Or in other words, if 100 million people think Obama is a natural born and he was prevented from running without any kind of proof (no trial, no supreme court) then yes that would be the end of American democracy.
Created:
I'm not worried about anything, I'm just saying you get away with calling people names and making digs with supposed or fabricated personal information whereas Greyparrot and now TWS get no such benefit of the doubt.ADL - let IWantRoseveltAgain to constantly get away with his repeated CoC violationsTWS - Says the TDS emasculated pencil dick libtard who clearly suffered a traumatic childhood.This is the guy you are worried about being called names? Are you stupid?
This is the claim for why there are more blacks in prison right? There are no laws that make being black illegal, the claim is that cops, prosecutors, and thus juries simply target blacks with the same laws while showing a relative apathy towards the so called privileged.
The theory is solid, a reliable way to sneak arbitrary power into government is to simply make everything illegal and then only punish the people you wanted gone in the first place.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's like talking to a brick wall. What is it about democracy that you believe connects to "emasculation"?So weird to talk to a TDS person that blames all things wrong in the world on Trump.
The world shifts and bends so that Trump can be punished in their mind. Preventing millions of people from voting for someone suddenly becomes consistent with democracy if that someone is Trump. It's frightening, like seeing a bad storm gathering you know nothing you can do will stop or slow it.
Barney's arguments sound like the Tories telling the Colonists to just "man up" and take it.
Did they say things like that? I don't know, they certainly made no secret of their contempt and derision.
All wars seem to be preceded by an abject ignorance of the foundations of peaceful coexistence, the mindless presumption that peace must continue regardless of how many people are resentful.
Even if Trump was Hitler, telling MAGAs or the german youth that they had best just suck it up because their grievances are so baseless they need not even be debated is the best possible way to fire them up.
If you can't beat Hitler in an election, you can't beat him at all. Anyone who would have tried to do that in the 30s would have just accelerated the whole thing. If you wanted to diffuse the situation you would have had to engage in the debate and offer the potential nazis a way out either by convincing them they weren't being oppressed or just helping them.
Let's see how that works out.
It's not even hard to predict. The sad part is that people like Barney aren't even going to understand the connection between their open mockery and the consequence. They'll just become even more hateful as their quality of life plummets due to the instability.
Created:
-->
@Athias
It is. No one can force a change to the checksum algorithms and those algorithms require a global asymptote (some other coins include growth curves based on transactions).This results in low-inflation not no inflation, given that oversupply will automatically create a rise in price to which the currency in question is indexed. And cryptocurrency can be oversupplied, though the checksum algorithms make it more manageable (Bitcoin, for example, as I understand has an inflation rate it regulates every four years, reducing mining by 50%.)
The a constant money pool results in price deflation if the exchanged goods and services increases. This rewards savers, and can be considered a problem. It was the excuse for creating a fractional reserve system in the first place. A case of the 'cure' being 1,500 times worse than the symptoms.
Bitcoin, for example, as I understand has an inflation rate it regulates every four years, reducing mining by 50%.
Yes, approaching the asymptote of 21 million quickly. A government's ability to manipulate this would be short lived and painfully ineffective even now.
Though your point is taken in what I assume you intended to argue that no sole manipulator can artificially inflate cryptocurrency supply.
Yes, that's true now; and soon it will be true that no significant inflation will occur at all. It's already cost-ineffective to search for new blocks, when it happens it's just a by product of transaction fee mining and that is exactly as intended.
This isn't much different from gold which was and still is hard to inflate.
This aspect is similar, and a gold standard would have prevented the inflation-theft mechanism that has run rampant since the 20s.
There is inflation, and then there is theft-inflation. Recall that the reserve banks don't just create money, they also control the money they created. They can and do 'loan' it straight to the government without any constraint or regulation.
It's doing so much damage because it's a way for government to steal without the bad press and debate caused by taxes. Inflation steals in a way that most people don't understand and don't blame government for. If we were on a gold standard during covid (with all the same government policies and spending) and people saw 60-70% effective tax rates they would have revolted long before the election.
Also in many ways gold is easier to steal. It requires vaults and guards. Keeping crypto safe only requires an informed brain and keeping a secret.
I would argue however that unlike gold, the scarcity of which cannot be manipulated (unless through convincing counterfeit) checksum algorithms can be manipulated, even if its change cannot be "forced."Indeed they would have to tear down the internet and make private computing without backdoors illegal to enforce such a thing.And they've (members of government, that is) have been slowly building towards that through their "National Cybersecurity Strategies."
With a sufficiently violent government anything is possible, they could nationalize all gold mines for example.
Created:
-->
@Barney
It is antidemocratic and that will mean civil war for a nation with the history of the USA.As previously stated: “feed directly into his emasculated victim narrative.”
It's like talking to a brick wall. What is it about democracy that you believe connects to "emasculation"?
That his supports while buying into said narrative will threaten civil war about the very idea that he could potentially be ineligible, further supports my point.
Is your point that people who lose their democratic form of government will feel victimized? Then yes you're definitely right about that.
And this isn’t even touching on the massive hypocrisy of Trump and friends trying to throw out the democratic process (see “birth certificate,” and January 6 insurrection).
If Trump had stayed in office while holding no secure election would that make you an emasculated victim? Or is it only if you complained?
Created:
-->
@Barney
I'll make it simpler:Did I get the gist right?
Successfully removing anyone with a serious chance of winning an election for any reason excludes that government from honestly describing itself as a democracy. When the national identity is predicated on government by consent through democracy this is a fatal blow to the consensus on the social contract.
It is antidemocratic and that will mean civil war for a nation with the history of the USA.
That is the obvious big problem.
Created:
-->
@Barney
The big problem with any efforts to prevent him from running for president, is those feed directly into his emasculated victim narrative.That's the only problem you could think of? Nothing about being a direct contradiction of the democratic premise?I can think of plenty of others. However, within a democracy the majority rule, even if they're unwise.
They can't be said to be ruling if their options are filtered through the fiat of deranged bureaucrats and propagandists.
The biggest problem with removing anyone from a ballot in the name of preserving democracy is that it is so obviously hypocritical that only the completely brainwashed will have any choice but to lose all trust and confidence in the integrity of the system which compounds the completely legitimate mistrust and derision that already exists.
When Alan Dershowitz gets to 10 bananas the inane fools on CNN are going to tell you "well if the 100 million don't want to believe this is a democracy anymore they can go pound sand".
It may behoove you to consider before that point that it is not sand they will pound. Rather anyone who dares to advocate for ballot manipulation while uttering the word "democracy" will evoke a murderous rage in them the likes of which no one has seen in this country for a century. Jan 6 will look like nothing. CHAZ will look like nothing.
"emasculated victim narrative" The blinders required to say that is "the big problem".... my god you're pouring gasoline on the fire. Have you ever tried that in real life? Tell someone to follow the rules, break the rules right in front of them, accuse them of breaking the rules, and then tell them to "man up" and quit whining? They'll fuck you up, and they should.
We are going to have a civil war because people like you can't apply basic psychology to the general population.
Created:
let IWantRoseveltAgain to constantly get away with his repeated CoC violations
True
Also TrueThere is no debate here
Moving onto an actual debate forum where actual intelligent people converse and can actually follow along in the discussion whilst having a firm grasp of the English language (whereas you ass clowns don’t)!!!
Good luck with that, I can't find anywhere. This generation is doomed and will cause itself enormous suffering because of the ignorance they were never saved from.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
And people like you are exactly who he recognized he could manipulate from the start
4 > 1
Created:
-->
@ebuc
You can't see unless the torus is bisected. You have to bisect the torus and until you're willing to do that there is no point in trying to make you see.So lets see now.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
You're not allowed to call democrats confederates, they've moved on.
Created:
-->
@Athias
It is impossible to inflate,I don't think that's true.
It is. No one can force a change to the checksum algorithms and those algorithms require a global asymptote (some other coins include growth curves based on transactions).
The government making a hard fork and then throwing people in jail if they keep using the old system is hardly a weakness of the strategy since forcing that level of naked power is the most any system could possibly achieve. Indeed they would have to tear down the internet and make private computing without backdoors illegal to enforce such a thing.
At the very least, they can still tax it. I remember reading a while back about how there's over 60 billion dollars of cash-based transactions that aren't taxed. The shift to an online ledger would "remedy" that.
That's why privacy coins are superior.
Bitcoin (and analogs) destroy money supply manipulation such as inflation and remove the weakness of government being able to remove your money without your consent and without capturing and torturing you as they can do now by simply going to the bank.
Monero (and analogs) do all that and they will effectively create a condition where any disturbance to the system will cause a chain reaction that destroys taxation (involuntary fees of any kind) because the government will not even be able to quantify most people's income or transactions without cooperation.
They will likely ban privacy coins the moment any gains traction with the excuse being it is used by criminals. Of course anyone who refuses to pay taxes is a criminal in their view so that's not inaccurate to the hope. Cash is also preferred by true criminals today but its popularity makes it hard to use that excuse to remove it and the same would be true if a privacy coin was adopted faster than the gears of government could react.
Note also that it isn't the cash economy that need be targeted for subversion but the credit card economy as well as things like google or apple pay. The USD and all the cash would still exist, but from the government's point of view it just sits in big exchange accounts and does nothing taxable.
People will be paid in crypto, will buy in crypto, and need only concern themselves with USD for the purposes of cash. Of course the IRS will learn to track and tax but they already have the ability to audit everything you buy electronically or are paid through W2 employment.
It's still a step forward to remove ways they can steal. Even people immorally supporting taxes would agree that preventing currency manipulation so that all taxation must go through legislative process is a benefit.
Created:
-->
@Athias
International Bankers I presume would intend mass adoption of cryptocurrency because of the block-chain/online ledger system.
It is impossible to inflate, why would they pursue it if they can't manipulate it?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Read more carefully.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You haven't a clue what would happen if the vote was secure and the winner was decided by a straight national majority. People who don't vote in non-battleground states would be mobilized where now they correctly believe there is no point.
Created:
-->
@Barney
That's the only problem you could think of? Nothing about being a direct contradiction of the democratic premise?The big problem with any efforts to prevent him from running for president, is those feed directly into his emasculated victim narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What does testosterone have to do with being a woman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You need to transition.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
No, strangely enough they didn't decide to shoot any protestors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
"helplessness" orbits the above precise analysis while being far to vague. Some people like feeling helpless as it allows them to enjoy the satisfaction of trusting, but since the trust was their will liberty is not violated.I believe I understand. You highlight that it is not quite helplessness, but unwilling relinquishment of one's own autonomy that stimulates trauma?
Yes, and this is not unique to rape there is a vast category of injury due solely to violating liberty. Jumping out of a plane and being pushed are two very different things even if you have a parachute in both cases.
Even something as simple as drinking tea could become injurious in the context of deprived liberty.
The fact that rape so often causes trauma as opposed to lesser forms of mental injury is due to the completeness of the attack. One's body is the intrinsic personal property. The situation is often crystal clear and thus so is the disregard of the attacker for one's liberty. Culture feeds into it, but there is no doubt tabula rasa people would take it very personally.
Created:
Some left-wingers insurrected by entering restricted areas of the capitol building.
I'm going to say Joe Biden encouraged this. Therefore according to the new interpretation of the 14th ammendment he gave aid and comfort to enemies of the constitution. Therefore he isn't president, making him an unenelected figurehead who can't be president even if he was elected.
Let's see if they get 20 years in jail...
Created:
-->
@Athias
So they say.which are not subject to the authority of any particular administration including Biden's
the Federal Reserve has to be abolished
The people can obsolete it themselves by adopting cryptocurrency. "People have the government they deserve" is not literally true but it is true that governments don't exist a certain way without a whole lot of people going with the flow.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ideals are not enough apparently.Arbitrary Laws don't keep a country together. Ideals do. Even if you have to compromise laws to maintain the common ideals.
People react to what they perceive. Two people with identical values will come to vastly different conclusions if one watches only CNN for a year and the other watches only Infowars (chosen because they are roughly equidistant from a coherent view of reality).
We're not being torn apart by wanting different things, we're being torn apart because we see different things. The dividing characteristic is critical thinking vs goldfish memory.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
Weak sauce, who cares what the FBI says. They lie. You set your piton in them and they'll just replace the agent with an insurgent and then poof you have nothing.
On that note I declare that Merrick Garland's letter threatening parents as domestic terrorists constitutes insurrection. No trial needed, he is from that moment no longer attorney general.
Created:
If we've come to a point where any major segment of the population is willing to say that they can simply declare individuals traitors and ineligible then the inevitable next step is for all opposing factions to start claiming the same thing, perhaps tongue in cheek; but no less earnest.
That's the last step before secession or war.
Watch: Biden committed insurrection by having the biggest voter fraud network in history (his own words). Therefore he "shall not be" president (or hold any other office). Therefore he's not the president.
No trial required. Only secretaries of state or what not can decide? Watch this:
Anyone who attempts to decide to keep Biden on a ballot or suggest in any way that he is actually president has given aid and comfort to the rebel Joe Biden. Therefore they "shall not" hold any office.
Now the only real secretaries of state are the ones who agree with me. Boy the 14th amendment is a sweet one, why didn't we think of this before?
Oh right, because we didn't have to; because it was obvious that if you're willing to interpret the constitution in such a way that any citizen is empowered to destroy the entire government based on his perception of what constitutes insurrection then it wouldn't be very useful as a social contract. Or rather when you got 1/3 of the population willing to rule out another third no social contract matters anymore.
The only question is just how many idiots are going to feel a little bit better about their side in the civil war because they bought some bullshit about their side being legally right by some absurd standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Why is it that women can endure sex, but rape of an equal experience is traumatizing?
Women aren't the only people who are raped. The physical sensations may be equal but the total experience is not. Full answer below:
Is the source of trauma embedded in fully recognizing one's helplessness?
Trauma is an extreme version of dissatisfaction that penetrates and inhabits the subconscious. All dissatisfaction, and thus trauma, arises from the violation of values.
Man determines his own values, some are much more common and biologically encouraged than others. Liberty is an axiomatic value, meaning all cognizant beings value their own liberty.
Violating liberty is thus sure to cause dissatisfaction, if it is perceived to be a severe violation it will cause trauma.
"helplessness" orbits the above precise analysis while being far to vague. Some people like feeling helpless as it allows them to enjoy the satisfaction of trusting, but since the trust was their will liberty is not violated.
Is the past determined by our perspective, and the same experience if viewed positive or negative will be such an experience?
The past is all that was. The physical experience is an objective part of the past, but so are the emotions and beliefs a person held at the time.
A person with the 'correct' philosophy and sufficient will can overcome all dissatisfaction, but that does not mean values are illusions, rather it means self-delusion/self-discipline is unbounded.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It’s absolutely pathetic.
4 > 1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The above conception is capable of matching most of the majority's moral conclusions without the contradictions introduced by trying to stretch and tear the concept of consent and rape till they fit.This is assuming the government knows the majority consensus.
What I said has nothing to do with the government. I'm saying that many (but not all) of the the common moral conclusions about certain sexual situations (and anything to do with informed consent really) are correct but the reasons for those conclusions are wrong (bad argument due to incoherent concepts).
And some places disagree on the age of consent (even ideologically similar places). In NY, the age of consent is 18; in CT, it's 16. They both vote blue by comparable margins, but their age of consent is about as different as you can be by the standards of the US. Do we let the whole country decide the age of consent, the individual states, the individual counties, the voting districts (which change in area with time because people move), the precincts, the individual people (which would basically mean there would be no age of consent because if even one person says it's okay to have sex with 8 year olds, everyone else is banned from doing it if they vote for a higher age, but the person who voted for no age of consent would be allowed to do that even if they personally wouldn't have sex with an 8 year old, but they were fine with other people doing it). If you let precincts decide, all the pedophiles could move to some random location in the US and have those precincts have no age of consent; they could do the same thing for a county with small amounts of people; it's harder to do that for a district, state, or nation because you would need about 700,000 pedophiles to settle all with each other in the same voting district or county so they could make their age of consent for their county 0.
Yes what you've just stumbled upon is the fact that democracy and objective morality have nothing to do with each other because the mere act of having an opinion doesn't make you correct no matter how many of you there are.
If you can't answer "why" without arbitrage you don't really know.
The summary of debates I have had previously have utterly convinced me that the underlying concept of relevance when "informed consent" is invoked is relative responsibility due to anticipated but uncommunicated harm. "consent" is an excuse given because it is simple and they cannot articulate the more complicated moral engine in the mental fog.
Choose any number of examples and I can show you the pattern.
Created:
A guilty verdict and the words of a judge prove nothing.This proves you don’t have to physically participate in the insurrection to be guilty of seditious conspiracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Korea's various definitions of consent contradict each other.
Regret is always possible for any age, any knowledge level, any impairment degree. As you correctly pointed out.
The question is not when consent is possible but when a contextually intellectual superior is responsible for his or her inferiors. Is a sober man responsible for his interactions with a drunk man? Is an adult responsible for his interactions with a child? Is a modern human responsible for his interactions with a neolithic person (sent through time or something)?
The above conception is capable of matching most of the majority's moral conclusions without the contradictions introduced by trying to stretch and tear the concept of consent and rape till they fit.
In other words you can rape a drunk person if they in their impaired state don't consent. If they do consent it is not rape; but that does not mean there was no moral error.
The simple admission which cures this confusion is: Just because it's not rape doesn't mean it's not wrong. All rape is wrong, but some non-rape is also wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Occams razor is like your dads gun that you stole. You don't know what you're doing with that thing, put it down before you cut yourself.Let's apply Occam's razor.
It's not the responsibility of the state to debunk your conspiracy theories
Of course not sheep
I ignored everything you had to say about me and my "dishonesty" because it's all irrelevant to the topic.
It's all that's relevant when you display so openly that evidence doesn't move you. You don't care about statistics, you don't care about sources.
Your choice, and I'm not interested in the latter so if you want to stand on your ultimatum I'm fine with that
I bet you are, escape is always preferable to admitting defeat for people like you.
it just goes to show that you don't believe your own nonsense and know you can't support your claims.
I could provide literally hundreds more but that would be a monumental waste of time as you've already demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Absent any further context, the above as written would be hypocritical.
Sophistry.
You have so far argued that 4 examples is greater than 1 and also argued that 1 out of 5 is not an overwhelming majority.
What a steelman, you've acknowledged basic math.
So with that interpretation, you are misrepresenting what I've argued. My one example (that I predicted you were going to and in fact did ignore) was not the one example of a legitimate voter. My one example was the state elections board investigation itself.
Bullshit. You read the headline, you thought it was an example of a dead voter not being dead and that's all you thought.
Your original offer of the link:
Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless. I could provide literally hundreds more but that would be a monumental waste of time as you've already demonstrated:
It is absurd to claim that you could offer literally hundreds of examples category "investigation".
You lie.
Also this revisionism doesn't change a thing. If the findings were supposed to be representative of anything they can only be representative of 4/5 dead voter claims being cases of fraud; something I am not dismissing but you are.
The context fails to erase the hypocrisy. Your answer is incorrect.
Recall the claim: Thousands of dead people voted.
Thousands of ballots were sent in for dead people.
My Rebuttal: this claim has already been investigated and failed to produce any valid evidence sufficient to justify this claim.
False, your claim was that all of the evidence had been debunked (implying every example) and then you tried to provide "just one example" of the evidence being debunked; unknowingly providing 4 examples of it not being debunked.
"your circumstantial evidence had all been debunked."
Your evidence/rebuttal: 'here are 4 examples of dead voters'
Your evidence actually, you entered it into the record.
So your first problem is math. In a state where 5 million votes were cast, 4 examples of dead voters does not give rational justification to assert that this is a serious issue. This is statistics 101.
I say thousands
You say "except this one" while providing 5 examples only one being an exception
I still say thousands
I still say 'dead voters' are only a small fraction of the probable total fraudulent ballots
You attempt the same deception you did for the propaganda list. You say there is no pattern, then you got into an example, are soundly defeated on the example, and then say "well one example doesn't prove anything" when YOU are the one who started with specifics. You predicted I would ignore one concrete example and proceeded to ignore four. Hypocrisy and lies.
Your second problem I find even more egregious
What you find egregious is utterly irrelevant to any honest observer.
You did not examine these 4 ballots.
Examining ballots doesn't catch fraud unless they are printing ballots.
You did not interview the 4 family members caught of submitting fraudulent ballots. You accept these 4 examples as legitimate for no other reason other than that you were told about them.
I wasn't just told, you told me; and I believe specific claims because they are susceptible to fact checks by people like James O'Keefe (last of the investigative journalist as far as I can tell). Officials saying "we looked into it" cannot be fact checked even to the point of knowing what the hell that meant.
But the same people who told you about them are also telling you that they investigated this and found that nearly everyone alleged to have been dead is still alive. Yet you disregard those findings outright.
There are no findings to disregard. Findings would be in the form of a report with the list of asserted dead voters (not chosen by them) and the result of the investigation tabulated with sworn statements from both partisan canvassers for each example.
Acceptable results per example would be of the form "Living voter with same name and address as deceased voter found", "death certificate or funeral record was forged", "fraud confirmed, no suspect", "fraud confirmed, charges pending case#"
That would be the bare minimum to expect from an true democracy.
So when the information you were being fed aligned with what you wanted to hear, you accept it. When it didn't, you closed your eyes and plugged your ears.
Confession by projection.
So once again. You claimed thousands of dead people voted. Do you have evidence to rationally justify this claim? YES OR NO?
You didn't get question 4 right. Try again without the lies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That is not a definition of property it's an assertion of ownership.food belongs to the hungry
slight modification to one of your definitionsWell, I use definitions from dictionary, so no.
Sure buddy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That is not something you've proven, and even if you did it's likely that a slight modification to one of your definitions would resolve the contradiction.The concept of theft is built on the concept of property.There are multiple concepts of property that contradict each other. Thats why property is always theft.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Ok, let's try this.
No, you're out of tries with me. My questions:
Q1: Is 4 > 1
Q2: is 1/5 an "overwhelming majority"
Q3: True or False: "circumstantial evidence (of dead voters indicating fraud) had all been debunked"
Q4: Is blatant hypocrisy to say "Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless. I could provide literally hundreds more but that would be a monumental waste of time as you've already demonstrated" and then to claim four examples are meaningless?
Until such time as you've answered these questions correctly, especially #4 speaking to you is a "monumental waste of time as you've already demonstrated".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
YOU SAID:Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless.Now you claim four examples are meaningless.This is like arguing that 4 strands of hey is greater than 1 entire hey stack, because 4 > 1.
No it's like saying 4 stalks of hay are more than one stalk.
The number of examples provided is no where near as important as the quality or weight of those examples. This is basic common sense.
"Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless."
Moreover, by comparing your "examples" to mine, you are engaging in an egregious category error. The 4 examples you gave were literally a subset of my one example.
Stuff your sophistry somewhere else.
What I provided was a report about an entire investigation that proved the overwhelming majority of these allegations is false.
You provided an article sumerizing claims. The statistics of the article looks like this:
4 cases of fraud + dead voter
1 case of mistaken identity, not dead voter
4/5 fraud 1/5 false positive
20% false allegations vs 80% true allegations. THE INVERSE OF MAJORITY FALSE, MAJORITY TRUE
I don't know how I fooled myself into thinking you could be reasoned with up till this point. I should have seen the signs that you're too far gone.
What you provided are the literal 4 examples found in a system where about 5 million votes were cast of dead voters
You provided, YOUR SOURCE
4/ 5million URRRRRH fake, that assumes your source infallibly discovered the truth behind every apparent dead voter. FALSE
all four of them cast by family members carrying out their loved ones wishes, not part of some nefarious scheme.
Voter fraud is a nefarious scheme. Remember when you thought you proved Trump was nefarious because he didn't carry out a quid pro quo he denies ever making? What does lying about the dead guy filling out the ballot say to you?
That is not meaningful given the claim.
"Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless."
Do you understand why finding only 4 examples of dead voters in a state where about 5 million votes were cast works against your claim?
I finally understand that you don't believe your own lies. No one is too stupid to figure out that 1/5 != overwhelming majority. If not stupidity, malice.
Do you understand basic math and statistics?
Shove your gaslighting where the sun don't shine. 4 > 1.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Why?Its the infinite time thats not possible, logically.
Created:
There is no need for infinite possibilities so long as there is infinite repetition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Well, I wasn't necessarily refering to a nuclear war despite the US craves for a big scale war to keep its arms economy running.
No, I wasn't saying there would be nuclear war. I'm saying that the world can't be destabilized into world war the way it used to be. An American civil war now would be a disaster for Americans and not the world (despite what many in the deep state think).
This is an important moral factor because it means that self-destruction is preferable (on the global scale) to allowing the deep state to form a global digital police state.
I don't see they do it now.
They're held for years without charge now.
Is it necessary to drop bombs to grow economically?
When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. One of the turning points was when congressional approval was considered no longer necessary to attack people in other countries. The naive might think that gave power to the president he should never have, but in reality the presidents (until Trump and probably including Trump) do what the Pentagon tells them to do. They control the 'information' he sees so they control the decision he makes (unless he is very cunning or stubborn).
'we' created a group of unelected permanent militarists who could kill people at will behind a shield of secrecy and disinformation. What else but this machiavellian evil could result?
I guess China do it better because they have more experience
The only reason CCP isn't being left behind like the USSR was is because the 'western world' is now just as corrupt and deluded. 40 years of stealing 1/3 to 1/2 of production compounds.
Created: