Total posts: 4,833
[IwantRooseveltagain] the same way you can’t prove you’re not a child molester
Wow, the CNN clip instantly brought you to capitulation. Don't worry, you'll forget all about it tomorrow and you can start watching CNN as gospel again. Cognitive dissonance is powerful that way.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He didn't do any mandates.after his screwup with the Covid mandates.
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain]No, she didn’t destroy anything and she didn’t tell anyone to destroy anything.
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain] There’s plenty of oversight at the Justice Department, even if you are ignorant about it.
Yea, the deep state are the ones overseeing themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The time to be concerned is when American society ceases to be democratic.Now as I recall and not so very long ago, a certain Mr Trump and a lot of his fellow red hat people were quite keen on this option.
Your memory is in error. The red hat people were stirred to rage by the loss of democracy.
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain] No President controls the FBI.
If it's not a president it's the deep state. The idea that you fill a vessel with enormous political power with no oversight and everything just works out is naive to the point of childishness.
[IwantRooseveltagain]No, she didn’t destroy anything and she didn’t tell anyone to destroy anything.
Tell it to the CNN fact checkers.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I'm not sure why I'm responding to you, it's very hard to understand what you're trying to say.
If a pedophile gets off fucking a ( i hate saying this ) A kid like sex doll.This may or may not stop "him" from performing this act on a real kid.So again .Do you think "they" should create and make available, a range of ( kid like sex dolls ) ?
I don't think there is a sound moral justification for using force to prevent the creation or fucking of sex toys regardless of their nature.
No matter how much some people may wish pedophiles would just keel over and die, denying them such things won't cause that to happen.
I don't think there would be a strong correlation between access to a sex doll (or simulated porn) and attempted kidnapping and the like. People decide what to do based on the rules they make up for themselves. If a person was raised with the correct philosophy those rules are subject to logical criticism from within and without. Otherwise they are not.
1) If a pedo tells him/herself that "I need the real thing" because of X, Y, Z sex toys and porn won't fix that.
2) If a pedo accepts his/her sexuality but determines to subsist only on fantasy sex toys and simulated porn may improve his/her quality of life, but I think anyone who would use the lack of those things as an excuse to change moral standards would do so anyway.
3) If the only kind of pedo you would accept is one who tries to deny his/her sexuality completely to the point of attempting to never fantasize or masturbate to it, I think that's going to lead to some severe sexual tension that may eventually break the pedo and send him into camp (1).
In conclusion your opinion on the appropriateness of masturbation aids for pedophiles doesn't come to much, I'm sure they can and do make do without some large legal market for such things.
If you think they shouldn't then.What if it stops one kid from being molested.
Debating pedophiles in the open instead of censoring them is much more likely to prevent one or more kids from being molested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It's got to be planned. Two utter non-sequiturs in a row.Well it's probably because I have a higher sex drive than most even though I am as old as Trump.
Created:
A testament to how little Trump actually controlled the swamp monsters. If she had, she would have had to admit she destroyed the evidence right?And her emails were not subpoenaed by the FBI
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
it just happened that he "discovered them" (in his garage and all over the place) a few months after the DJT witchhunt. What a coincidence.Let's assume it was not a coincidence.
Way ahead of you.
Did Biden turn them in voluntarily, or did the FBI have to obtain a court approved search warrant to get them back?
Doesn't matter since it was merely a defensive move to avoid being caught in double standards as they advanced upon a drastic and silly reinterpretation of the law.
Did Biden lie the FBI telling them he didn't have the documents knowing full well he did?
Biden lies about quite a few things. If he ever talked to the FBI in an adversarial sense I'm sure he would lie just as he lied to the American public when he said he was never involved in the 'business' dealings Hunter setup.
Did Biden order the documents he was retaining to be moved from one location to another to avoid the FBI finding them?
He would hardly need to, if they had any secrets he cared about (which is unlikely), his secrets are safe with the FBI. The FBI isn't trying to destroy the American republic by framing him.
And if you think the answer to any of these questions is yes, does anyone, anywhere, have any evidence of this?
The answer is: I don't care.
It's pretty hard not to see the difference here and figure out why those differences would result in one getting charged and not the other.
Oh, so your theory is that these so called differences are why one was charged but not the other.
Well, in your theory; what is the explanation for why nobody asked for Biden's documents until shortly after they started pretending it was a crime to keep documents after leaving office?
It's like if cops only detained blacks and then said "well the whites never give us any trouble" = Yea if you never go after them, they wouldn't would they?
Lets go through it again and evaluate whether they explain differential charging:
Did Biden turn them in voluntarily, or did the FBI have to obtain a court approved search warrant to get them back?
Was Biden ever told to turn them in? Did anyone even know or care that Biden had the documents?
Did Biden lie the FBI telling them he didn't have the documents knowing full well he did?
Was he ever asked what documents he had? Was he swatted upon saying he wasn't sure?
Did Biden order his attornies to falsely claim the area was searched and cleared of any further documents?
Did Biden ever need attorneys to deal with the FBI? (No, the parts of the FBI involved are deep state puppets.)
Did Biden order the documents he was retaining to be moved from one location to another to avoid the FBI finding them?
Did Biden have documents spread all over his properties including offices in Chinatown? Was that to hide them? Did the FBI ever search for them?
Did Biden attempt to delete the video footage showing where the documents were after learning that that very footage was being federally subpoenad?
Did Biden have surveillance of any of the locations where he kept government documents?
Did the FBI know of this supposed attempt of Trump's before charging?
Did Biden sit around showing and explaining those documents to people who clearly did not have the clearance while admitting her knew they weren't supposed to see them?
Is there a mountain of circumstantial evidence that Biden is the type who would sell classified material to the highest bidder?
Did the FBI know of this supposed conversation with Trump before charging?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
90% of children, when they grow up, dont want for their partner to go to prison.
Is that stat in there? Has anyone spot checked the interviewees?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The problem is that children in most cases, when they grow up, dont want for their adult partners to go to prison.
Yet if there is a significant age gap then on average there would be a significant period of time before the former child died and after the older partner died in which the former child can make his or her case without risking harming the now dead older partner.
Why do we never see it?
I am reminded of asking Sasquatch enthusiasts where the bodies are. Yes yes, you can have all these theories and some circumstantial evidence corroborates but you do need a theory about why theoretical predictions fail to appear.
Created:
Hillary should be in jail for deleting emails on her server.
She's not in jail. Pick a standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Do you plan to say the most obtuse thing possible or is it spontaneous?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It's more precise to say of those who would consent to sex of some kind very few would consent to sex with 'pervy old menActually, 10% of map are teenagers and children. MAP arent born as old men, even tho many believe that map can only be an old man. It is just a belief meant to further demonization.
Well those teenage hebos better get it while they can. The point remains, the capacity to consent does not in any way mean consent isn't so rare as to be instantly suspect.
I mean take that mutilating sex doll that deb-8 is selling. He could claim that people consented to use it, and it's a theoretical possibility that they did; but it's such a bizarre thing to consent to that intervention is warranted to rule out fraud or extortion.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
My mate has a sheep sex doll and ive NEVER EVER seen him fuck a real sheep.
I suspect you're not omniscient.... or sane.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
other animals might not be smart enough to masturbate. we are primates anyway so if other primates do it, it seems natural.
It doesn't take that much intelligence, it's more like they lack fine manipulation of soft organs that can reach their privates.
Of course with enough intelligence masturbation finds a way, see dolphins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
rofl, it just happened that he "discovered them" (in his garage and all over the place) a few months after the DJT witchhunt. What a coincidence.Both Biden and Trump were found to have taken classified documents, but Biden turned his in voluntarily as soon as he discovered them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I hear they control the courts, the media, the education system, climate science and HollywoodOh....and they can rig electionsWow....that's really powerful
Yep, but they have to be careful. Any democrat who suggests the military budget should shrink or that giant international corporations (especially tech and pharama) are out of control lose access to these super powers.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
If porn is involved in masturbation, it is just because we men need visual stimulation.
All my best masturbation sessions are from erotic stories, not images or videos.
So is there any hard evidence of harm from porn or just the claim that it is addictive? I know it's not addictive for me, or not addictive enough. My love of pasta and hard cheese is a far greater threat to me self-control than porn... it also has proven health detriments.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If there was an adult that gave a kid nothing but candy to eat, the kid would also enjoy it most of the time (I wouldn't since I have never liked candy. But I'm an odd case). That doesn't mean it's beneficial for the child.
It is in fact harmful for the child, but they certainly consent to eating it. Here is the guy "Sound of Freedom" is based on admitting that pedophiles are seeking consent:
Relationships would be better guided by society. In the USA, 30% of children had sex before 16.That's a problem.
Perhaps, but not a problem of rape.
Allowing such relationships wouldnt cause every child to have STI.A lot of kids are going to get STIs, and a lifetime of having STIs isn't worth 3 minutes of sexual pleasure. At least with pregnancy, that kid would grow up in 19 years. STIs last with you the rest of your life.
This is extreme over generalization. The most permanent of all 'common' STDs (HIV) has for most intents and purposes been cured.
But most child-child relationships are discovered because it's legal.
That does not follow. Minors often hide their sexual behavior from parents.
Given that adults tend to be very controlling of kids they are close too, it does more harm.
This is the most coherent theory of harm. Specifically the perception of being tricked, deceived, and used by someone you trusted is the source of trauma (excluding rape and kidnapping with their obvious mechanisms of trauma).
With parents, you know the parent is looking out for their kid's best interests
You hope, you don't know.
A 8 year old child doesn’t even know what an STI is.
Nor did anyone know it better than an eight year old can until a hundred years ago. It hardly matters when STIs can be ruled out of a particular context.
If the kid didn’t want the pedo prosecuted, in court, the kid would have defended the pedo and said that it was consensual. If that was the standard, I don’t think pedophillia would be as stigmatized as it is now because there would be reports done by mainstream media about how kids are in trauma about their adult lovers being killed.
There is missing evidence there, however it can be explained by sacrificing one element of the standard pedo platform: the idea that children are making independent decisions.
I think they'll just feel and say whatever they think the adults around them want, at least when they feel frightened at the consequences (which you can feel even without being threatened with violence).
So they cooperate with pedos and tell them they enjoyed it and they cooperate with cops and parents saying it was horrible.
If that is what's going on in many cases it's proof enough the minor was not ready.
However let’s say every time a white person had sex with a black person, the blacks person called it rape. Then having sex with black people would get viewed comparably to pedophillia.
I feel like that thought experiment was overly distant and ornate. It also seems to imply that what a court may decide in this bizarre alternate world has any significance, but a society so ready to ignore easily derived truths could hardly be trusted to have reliable judges anymore than our reality.
In any case, one may presume that the blacks in that world who don't feel they've been raped won't be running to the police about it. Thus you would be waiting for the statistically tiny scenario of discovery unwanted by either party, and even then you presume that the culture would accept a black's objections instead of just pitying them further for being "brainwashed and manipulated", however the black person being in fact intelligent could predict that response and thus saves themself by keeping their silence.
If there was a 12 year old kid who enjoyed sex with adults (I don’t know your type), there would be prosecutions, the kid would have argued that they feel more traumatized from their adult partner being prosecuted than they did from sex, it would make mainstream news, and there would be a movement (that would have won decades ago) that legalized pedophillia.
I am not convinced a 12 year old would have been allowed to make such claims, and especially not convinced the media would amplify the message.
But 12 year old kids don’t like having sex.
It's more precise to say of those who would consent to sex of some kind very few would consent to sex with 'pervy old men', not without some other motivator on the table.
I never really enjoyed porn or anything similar until I was 14 I think, and just because I liked the porn doesn’t mean I would want to do that in real life. Pretty much all porn I watch I would never want to emulate.
That is unusual, almost as unusual as Korea's claims of prepubescent masturbation.
And how far does the claim, “children can consent” go? Like would you be okay with legalizing having sex with very drunk people that are awake but loony (like how children usually act)? I’ve never been drunk, but I’ve seen drunk people in videos before.
Just because there is consent, doesn't mean in should be legal. Your child self would consent to be in the car going 100 mph (your story above) but that doesn't mean it's safe, responsible parenting, or acceptable driving in general.
They are going to regret any sex they have when they become sober.
That is not guaranteed. It's a risk, not a certainty. Something to keep in mind as you have people out there claiming that a married person having sex with a sleeping spouse is rape. (It isn't if they gave blanket consent beforehand which can and does happen).
Created:
Do you really believe we would have all the roads, bridges and aqueducts we have by relying on private enterprise? Rural areas need government support. Even with it many rural areas are dying.
I think the world is complicated and even more so when human interest is involved.
There are few hard and fast rules. "You need to steal it" is not true. Nor is "Just cross your fingers and hope".
I believe that through an evolutionary process within the strict confines of morally acceptable social structures (contracts between consenting parties) stable and effective solutions to every problem would be found and further that they would be better than any system where consent may be ignored.
I say this for the benefit of the general forum goer knowing you probably can't understand me.
Created:
Give me an example of a private bakery in the soviet union that benefited the public at large.They also build private infrastructure all the time.[IwantRooseveltagain] Oh really? Give me some recent examples of “private infrastructure” projects the last 20 years that have benefited the public at large.
Nobody can compete when your competition (the government) can abduct anyone who isn't a "customer".
Created:
-->
@Double_R
and I walked you through the difference between belief and reality. If he had defined wokeness as "the fight against (definitely real) systematic injustice" what you say would follow.It doesn't really make a difference.
You're going in circles, I don't want to get dizzy so I'm getting off here.
You know who else purports to not believe there are systemic injustices in America? The KKK, white supremacists
You haven't talked to them have you? Also Hitler was a vegetarian..
Bit that's not what the lesson plan outlines.
Nor is the spin you assumed.
Then again when I say taxes are theft they tell me no one can build a road without stealing the money first. Based on that logic the only way to learn skills is to be kidnapped and enslaved.That logic doesn't follow. Roads cannot be built without money because people don't willingly work for free, nor do they contribute to the government voluntarily.
If people inherently don't volunteer that makes them inherently undemocratic.
People do however choose to learn new skills all the time.
They also build private infrastructure all the time. It was never really a sane position to hold but sometimes otherwise sane people think insane things when they suspend their own capacity for rational analysis.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
...or that everyone on earth had their lifespan reduced by a tenth of a second?
I say this one, simply because it does not directly ruin the life of basically anyone.
Which is to say harm is non-linear.
In OP's example the total lifetime lost is about 20 years in either case, but the problem is when it costs 10,000 human years to save one guy's 20 years.
That might be only a second of life, but if a computer was making the decision and it did not apply non-linear transformations to the final value proposition it would readily sacrifice the one guy.
Also consider this: Nobody would admit to holding a second of their life against someone else's lifetime, but in real world scenarios tradeoffs keep happening in many cases.
By definition doing anything but maximizing life-time will result in sub-optimal lifespans. What happens when the computer is saving 100,000 people the 20 year loss and now everybody is losing days and months?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Justice is complicated (as complicated as ethics). Equality is simple (given context). This is application of a principle of equality.The answer is: It is better to cause X/100 amount of pain to each of 100 persons, rather than X amount of pain to one person.It is a question of honour and justice, two moral values often ignored by many.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I sure hope so.Some time in the future, people will once again, throw off the shackles of crony corporate government and prosper as well.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
@Sidewalker
I am an admitted and unashamed zoosexual[Sidewalker] Well that's interesting, want to expand on that?
You missed all the 'fun', keep it in that thread if you have comments please (lest I be blamed for derailment).
So now a state lead by a man who has made it his mission to fight back against addressing systemic injustices in AmericaHe's fighting back against fraudulent claims of entitlement and guilt which characterize "woke", which is an act in furtherance of justice.[Double_R] Not according to him. I already walked you through this.
and I walked you through the difference between belief and reality. If he had defined wokeness as "the fight against (definitely real) systematic injustice" what you say would follow.
[Double_R] That fact (that some slaves benefited from the skills they acquired from slavery after being freed), when considering the fact that slavery lasted for centuries is so incredibly benign and so deeply pales in comparison to the horror of what slavery was that it becomes offensive to devote any time to it just as it would be offensive to devote any time teaching our kids about the positive trade offs to downtown NYC resulting from 9/11.Do you understand the point that I’m making? Do you understand that this is not a dispute over any particular fact but about prioritization of which facts are focused on as I explained in my last post?
If it was taught as a "but" or a "on the positive" side I agree. That is merely an assumption on your part however.
For instance if the story about the twin towers was supplemented with "but we built a new tower cause you can't keep us down" that would not be offensive. One could easily imagine attributing skills in slaves to their ambition in the face of adversity rather than some kind of justification for slavery.
...Then again when I say taxes are theft they tell me no one can build a road without stealing the money first. Based on that logic the only way to learn skills is to be kidnapped and enslaved.
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] I’m sure even you can understand, if you put up a booby trap to stop someone (a child perhaps) from breaking into your home, you are going to be held legally responsible for their death in court and be sent to prison.
I wouldn't convict if a child trying to circumvent a locked door by climbing on the roof died.
Created:
-->
@Savant
This is the most interesting question I've seen on this site to date, and one who ever is going to write the moral framework of our new robot overlords will have to know the answer to inside and out.
Created:
-->
@prefix
I have noticed a number of members who seem to be borderline irrational in their comments.
Borderline? If the border between rationality and irrationality was as the Mexico-USA border, then there are people snooping around the Canada-US border (insanity, delusions of persecution/grandeur/etc...).
...and it would be wonderful news if the few people on this website were the only ones. They appear less well adjusted than the average man or woman but no less irrational.
Given that...
an independent psychological group
Has very little likelihood of evaluating anyone or anything with any reliability.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Then your obvious and irrelevant observations are noted. Moving on.The claim is "DeSantis is whitewashing slavery"Not my claim.
When you figure out what part of my post you take issue with feel free to point out put and explain why.
: "So now a state lead by a man who has made it his mission to fight back against addressing systemic injustices in America"
He's fighting back against fraudulent claims of entitlement and guilt which characterize "woke", which is an act in furtherance of justice.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The document then goes on to list other instructions with regards to teaching slavery and by page 16 changes the subject entirely to American history
.... What a non-sequiter.
Slavery in the USA is american history, and the document isn't "this is how you teach slavery", in fact the section in question was "Analyze events that involved or affected Africans from the founding of the nation through Reconstruction."
This isn’t a document spelling out the specific material to be taught, all of its instructions are just as vague as that above.
Well there are proper nouns so that's specific, but let's pretend there weren't. So what?
The claim is "DeSantis is whitewashing slavery"
The issue here isn’t about the 17 words included in this instruction. It’s the full context of what’s happening here. If this were the New York State board this would generate confusion more than outrage, but Florida under Ron Desantis has made it their mission to pass laws that just so happen to negatively impact black people. In fact it appears to be the defining characteristic of his political career.
Uh huh, except whenever the left-tribe tries to go into specifics on anything else they throw up their hands and say "well it's not this that proves it but the whole context of: we know he's a racist already"
Like bible thumpers quoting other parts of the bible to justify how one part is prophetic when it's obviously super generic-bronze-age-speculation.
Democrats = can associate with KKK, tell people they aren't black if they don't fall in line, but if they run for the democrat party they aren't racist
Anti-deepstaters = can be in public life for decades and never be accused of racism, but if they run against the military industrial complex they're racist
Coming up RFK and Vivek Ramaswamy will no doubt soon to be discovered racists, the common factor isn't the people or the message, it's the propaganda machine you trust.
In fact let me google, maybe they've already started. RFK yes, they're holding off on Ramaswamy but if he gets any more popular they'll do it. I need a meme of Dr. Malcom from Jurassic Park saying "race baiting finds a way".
Ron’s entire campaign platform has been to repeat woke every 5 seconds and make clear how he will end wokeness. So what is wokeness? According to his legal team it means “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them".So now a state lead by a man who has made it his mission to fight back against addressing systemic injustices in America just added to their school curriculum that slaves “in some instances” benefited from slavery.
You beg the question.
The belief != the reality
X = the belief there is a devil in hell that's trying to destroy men's souls
~X = denial of the belief that there is a devil in hell that's trying to destroy men's souls
Equivocation:
Double R doesn't believe in the devil and opposes people trying to spread awareness of the devil to children. So he has made it his mission to destroy men's souls as a servant of the devil.
Even if there was a devil, if you didn't believe there was a devil you couldn't have been a devil worshiper. Even if there is systematic racism (or whatever) if Ron DeSantis doesn't believe there is, he's not a racist.
At best he's ignorant and that's assuming the truth value of 'wokeness'.
PS that definition is insufficient. I believe there are systematic injustices in American society that need to be addressed, the elephant being the government stealing nearly half of everyone's labor and property. Am I woke?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well, mostly everyone is for the most part at least a little bit racist.
The kind of racism you're referring to has a lot in common with the flying spaghetti monster and is an instance of a general fallacy of appealing to bias, also known as circumstantial ad hominem.
Note also that bias is limited subjectivism, total subjectivism being the claim that reality itself has no concrete existence and thus perception is entirely biased. Subjectivism is the favored sand of those without an argument to support their opinions.
Long story short the possibility of bias has never defeated an argument and never will. If the nebulous concept of bias has no place in truth-finding then it has no use at all. So sure call me racist and think it's fine because you confess yourself, I see it no differently than a religious zealot (like BrotherD or who he pretends to be) telling me I am a pawn of the devil.
The opposite of "racist", the absense of racism, would be a colorblind approach.
Correct, and therefore the only coherent definition of "anti-racist" is someone who opposes anything but colorblindness.
I think letting race be a determinant even though not the most prevalent one is definitely better than if there is absolutely none.
Not sure what that means.
Anyway back in the day the white supremacists would and did define "whiteness" by merits (and a few vices). I was just rereading some of the leatherstocking tales and was again struck by the endless racist musings of Hawkeye. That is no doubt the way people thought in 1823: no particular malice, thinking themselves fair and objective, but disgusting racists regardless.
The only possible reason to revive virtue-race association is to lay a trap. A trap to ensnare good people into racism. Any course but complete rejection of the terminology leads to civilization crushing disaster. For a non-white to accept the terminology is to give license to reject virtue and claim all judgement based on that lack of virtue is racism. For a white to accept the terminology is to choose between valuing merit and becoming a white supremacist or rejecting merit and becoming an "ally" or in other words a self-immolating, self-hating, racist, coward.
Besides the enormous emotional damage this will cause, the only people embracing virtue in this scenario are the white supremacists. They will be the only ones producing anything or accomplishing anything. How convenient then that the doctrine of communism is so often given hand in hand with these racist psy-ops.
What does communism tell you to do? Eat the rich (basically). Kill the white supremacists that were manufactured for the purpose of having a target class, take their stuff; except communism fails because now nobody has virtue and nobody is producing anything.
This is evil, and evil must be opposed. Therefore if a "person of color" decides to be punctual, I'm not going to accuse that person of internalized racism or being a race traitor and nobody can make me.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I reported it first :)Ad hominem attack. Violation of the terms outlined the CoC = to you and your ad home against Grey Parrot. Reporting this asinine red herring false equivalency ad hominem fallacy.
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain] Nobody will know who you are.
I know, I made sure of it.
Go on, tell the truth.
I am an admitted and unashamed zoosexual who believes taxation is theft, denies that land can be owned, and who participated in the Jan 6 protests.
Are you trying to imply that I would refrain from saying something I believed? Really?
The blind application of a rote rhetorical strategy is hilarious.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
[Double_R] Then instead of just calling is wrong and then ignorant you could… I don’t know… provide an argument.[TWS] Then instead of just scrolling past my replies and then making stupid replies like this…I don’t know…actually read what I wrote.
TWS said:
Regardless, no. Not even close.
He doesn't need to make an argument to deny your speculation about a secret meaning for the words he used.
Created:
In power due to an illegitimate election.[IwantRooseveltagain] Oh really? Illegitimate how exactly?
[IwantRooseveltagain] Cause she’s black?
You know it gives me a powerful smirk when people in niche online communities full of people well trained in rhetorical devices try to race bait (which is formally a fallacy of a complex question). Out in the world, when those fascist propagandist (known to the indoctrinated as "media" or "officials") do it, it's really dangerous but here is just utterly ineffective. Like a shark on the beach thrashing around and gnashing its teeth but with nothing to bite.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
[IwantRooseveltagain] That [the truth] is absolutely an unacceptable point of view.
Thanks Trudeau
[Double_ R] And this adds to the conversation how exactly?
It is the stating of this fact that apparently qualifies as "whitewashing slavery" to some disturbed minds such as the illegitimate vice president Kamala Harris.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This doesn’t mean every white person who uses the term is racist, it means that anyone who cares about the very thing they’re preaching (merit) should understand the full connotations to the words they are using.
Only a racist thinks (or will tolerate) the idea that racial labels have connotations of virtue or vice.
Only a racist thinks (or will tolerate) the idea that concepts of virtue or vice have racial connotations.
End of story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Damn it it's back, I remember whey they posted it online for some so called museum and then quickly took it down; now they're getting bold enough to say it explicitly again?
"Civilization crushing inanity" perfect description, I stand against racism especially in the civilization crushing form.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yep, it will fry those insects to a crisp. They're well known for being totally intolerant of hot and humid conditions. Same with plants.there's always insect farms, and farming the oceans with plants and animalsGlobal warming will kill all of that.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm firmly convinced the hang ups are natural. Culture is stronger than instinct, but until we know a lot more than we do now disgust will always be something that needs to be controlled by self-discipline. It helps when people don't have parades in thongs or try to inform prepubescent children about all the different combinations of orifices and objects that might go in them. That kind of thing gives an excuse to justify the disgust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
You implied that you find only the supposed issue of anthropomorphic catastrophic global climate change to be of high priority in the set of all environmental complaints. I find that claim to be the least worthy of all environmental complaints.
Created:
-->
@AmericanPatriot
Just say "No" when someone asks :pYou definitely chose to have gay sex. I have no idea how you don't.
(Yes I know what you meant, no need to correct)
Created:
-->
@AmericanPatriot
What I find insidious is the revisionism. If they showed an ounce of creativity they could make new stories. Half of the stuff they mangle is fiction anyway.
I think it's creepy to have racial quotas in your story even if it was original, but they seem to take a perverse pleasure in smearing their notions of the ideal over things they did not create.
Sometimes it just seems like utter incompetence, I mean look at "The Woman King", out of all the black women that have ever done something noteworthy or all the blanks in history where a black woman could have done something noteworthy (historical fiction) they choose a slaver warlord....
I once listened to some preacher talk about race, he said that "black people need to ask god for help because we ain't never built a city". I guess this was supposed to be some based moment of honesty, but it stands out to me because of the ignorance and the fact that nobody in that church knew any better.
In the real world Ethiopia has been independent and civilized for thousands of years, among the eldest of nations. It's no city on a hill, but it's definitely a city and black people built it.
They (the ignorant westerners who are doing this black-washing) never mention that, show no signs of even knowing it. They obsess over imaginary countries like Wakanda or try to "steal" historical characters like Cleopatra, or (as stated) pick some really terrible specimens of humanity as their heroine.
It's just sad, really sad; but nobody said a mental disease like racism ever ended well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I am the inverse.I advocate for addressing the root cause of issues rather than merely treating the symptoms. Specifically, I prioritize tackling global climate change at its source rather than resorting to short-term solutions like building bigger dams. However, I find that many individuals involved in climate change initiatives lack a clear rationale behind their actions. While they may mention goals such as preserving biodiversity or reducing global temperatures, they often fail to explain why they believe these objectives are crucial. In my view, understanding the underlying problem is essential to finding effective solutions. We must identify and comprehend the issue thoroughly before labeling it as a problem and taking appropriate actions.
I generally support "environmental goals" except the reduction of carbon emissions. Litter, over hunting, over-fishing, and habitat removal are after all real and insofar as I like our ecosystems real problems that can exist.
That's not to say I always believe the claims nor do I think every species is equally worthy of preservation. For instance when there are 20,000 species of beetle and clusters that can't be distinguished without looking at their genitals I don't care if a few go extinct.
Clean air, clean water, minimal extinction, but I stick with the science which means a compound actually has to hurt something important to be called a pollutant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
It's wrong to cede that term. It's not "science", "science" is a subset of rational epistemology, it doesn't talk.Science has been wrong about every long term prediction it has ever made for the last 40 years.
Bold academics would be a better term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Whether you write it down or not, if you try to disable or kill me when I do something you find immoral, that's a law you deem I must obey.An oversimplification. It lacks the context that you are instigating and initiating harm or aggression--not simply my finding your action immoral.
To you "initiating harm or aggression" is more than finding an action immoral.
I do think initiating harm or aggression is a special case of immorality because it is something that can be proven to be immoral for anyone who claims the existence of any social rights.
Yet that does not mean this is not a moral claim. It's a code of behavior, a code that you insist on by force. If your idea of mediation services must operate by this code of liberty then they operate by a universal law.
I see no reason besides semantics to call that universal law and all its implications "the law" and the sum total of all organizations operating to enforce that law "the government". I admit that no government exists that does not violate the law, but that does not mean the word does not apply; you have to look at the definition and the definition of "government" does not imply any particular laws or support system.
I have every right to defend my person and my property, which coincides with unity in individual sovereignty.
A 'right' is a moral entity, and by my analysis you have a right to do more than defend your person and property, but also the person and property of others. If you didn't you couldn't have a right to work or run a "mediation" service could you?
Why can't I opt out of your notion that preemptive genocide is unacceptable?If one is functionally indistinguishable from a genocidal despot, then one has already opted out of my notions on genocide.
That is equivocation. "Opt out" must mean something along the lines of "I can disobey and you won't attack me".
If "opt out" means "I can disobey, and then you attack me for disobeying" then we can already opt out, after all the governments of the world can only attack in response to your disobedience; they can't (yet) control your mind directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Opt out of what exactly?Any arrangement they deem unfit, including cooperation with laws you deem they must obey.
Well here is the problem, when asked how you will stop me (from genocide) you said this:
Ok... then how will I be stopped?Persuade you, or effectively end the threat you've created which includes disabling you or killing you.
Whether you write it down or not, if you try to disable or kill me when I do something you find immoral, that's a law you deem I must obey.
Why can't I opt out of your notion that preemptive genocide is unacceptable?
Created: