Total posts: 4,833
-->
@n8nrgim
if you dont believe a word of it, that's just your bias.
Typically when a bias is based on well supported patterns it's just called 'knowing what the hell is going on'.
You know, like when you hear a Hitler speech and you say "I don't know what he's saying, but he's probably trying to do something evil."
your motive in ignoring it, could only be that you lack objectivity.
"lack of objectivity", that's not a #(&$*# motive (imagine 300 sketch).
Don't confuse objectivity with the fallacy of the middle or an appeal to the status quo. Objectivity is the result of equally applied rational epistemology.
do you acknowledge that trump's behavior at least looks unethical?
I acknowledge some people believe it was unethical if that's what you mean by "looks".
I do not acknowledge that Trump did anything unethical in terms of retaining documents from his term in office. Refusing to hand them over to the archives when the archives have never demanded this of any other official (to my knowledge) is also not immoral; and that's presuming any kind of coherent demand was ever made.
I don't know if you've seen my explain my moral theory before, but it concludes liberty; not asymmetric and absolute obedience to a harassing government bureaucracy on the almost certainly fabricated premise that they don't keep copies of critical information.
Created:
-->
@Slainte
I have security clearance for a government.
Either you're lying about that or having security clearance is no guarantee of knowing what you're talking about. The later explanation is almost certainly true, so I'll go with that.
Just ask ChatGPT "Why is top secret information not digitally stored"
Asking ChatGPT is asking reddit. Since you have a security clearance you can explain no?
Created:
-->
@Slainte
My "assumption" is correct, paper is not more secure to people who know what they're doing. Paper cannot reasonably be encrypted.
If whoever is claiming to need these documents doesn't know that already then that's white pill news for me. It means this government is so stupid and ignorant of IT that a dedicated group of cyber-punk libertarians might actually take it down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I know you go after people and I haven't really seen you go after ideas. How about you stay and address the arguments instead of calling people creepy and storming off.
Then if someone else is muddying up the water with ad hominema and spam you could have a leg to stand on.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i think the only way a person could think he didn't do anything wrong, at least ethically, is if they are clouded with bias and can't see clearly.
Or they don't believe a word of it.
About the documents being critical or what not.
It's 2023. There are digital copies, and if there aren't digital copies it wasn't that critical was it?
It's grand standing on minutia out of desperate fear that Trump might actually reduce the level of global violence leading to an inexorable reduction of profits for the military industrial complex and insider trading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Yea it's dead but it was dead when I showed up and I would be extremely surprised if it had anything to do with too many controversial assertions.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You argue like you constantly need to be perfect in the way you phrase things.
Thank you ;)
Like everyone needs to be as precise as necessary.
Well it is necessary...
I'll be honest, I didn't follow precisely what you were saying at first- this entire time your position has been largely neutral-at least from what you've explicitly said.
Neutral? You need to have a specific contention to be neutral on. The world is complicated and if something is as simple as "for" or "against" someone else has done a lot of conceptual work to get it to that point.
I'm not "neutral" on anything I've said in this thread, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole... or more like a clockwork peg into a round hole.
Its pretty apparent that you never actually investigated FLRW's source did you? Don't worry, i did your homework for ya-
Nope didn't need to, not my homework. Links are for data.
Again, it doesn't matter if the error was in the paper or in FLRW's presentation.
they investigated these and found that 8 to 25% of VARIATION in male and female same-sex behavior.
and what does that mean to you? Dumb it down for me will you?
Whats the point of all this? That you like to hide behind, "we can't confirm that" or "we have no way to know that"
What are you talking about? I haven't said that here; but if they were true it's hardly a spurious point to make.
The raincoat does however protect a certain region of your body-almost a PERCENTAGE.
Surface area is a quantity, thus there can be a percentage. Hormone concentration is a quantity, thus there can be a percentage. The fact that you needed to introduce a quantity to have a coherent percentage related to causality confirms my point.
i am saying that there is a certain percent chance that the cause- eating spoiled food- will result in an effect - getting sick.
No, what you're really saying that in the past a certain percentage of the times people ate spoiled food were followed by getting sick. "Getting sick" and "spoiled food" are simplifications.
The cause was bacteria or toxins and there very well could be critical quantities of either, but the percentage of those quantities is not the percentage probability. If you could measure those quantities and understood the full dynamics it would be either 100% you will get sick or 0% you won't.
To say "the toxins account for 25% of sickness" is wrong in that it means nothing. The toxins account for 100% of the sickness, but not all spoiled food has the required level of toxins and not all food is spoiled.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I tried STAR TREK: Discovery, and I hated it as many true fans of the genre do. It's too lefty/progressive with unbelievable characters and storylines that divert from Star Trek Cannon.
Agree, actually I have way worse things to say than that it is lefty. Some of the worst writing and most jarring outlets for "creativity" I've seen in a long time.
However, STAR TREK: Strange New Worlds actually compliments the original cannon, and it is quite entertaining...minus a few annoying characters that just need to go.
Agree.
One character I can do without is this one: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV Series 2022– ) - Melissa Navia as Erica Ortegas, Lt. Erica Ortegas - IMDb She just rubs me wrong.
Same
I wish they chose a different actress to play Christine Chapel. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV Series 2022– ) - Jess Bush as Nurse Christine Chapel - IMDb
She did alright... she should probably be a bit more reserved.
I really like this actor playing the ship's doctor, as I enjoyed his role in the new version of Dune. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV Series 2022– ) - Babs Olusanmokun as Dr. M'Benga - IMDb
I loved him, he seemed a little to ready to let his daughter turn into an energy being; but that is the way of the final frontier it seems.
This character was also in TOS, and it was said he studied medicine on Vulcan; I think they should have made a point of that or something.
While this actress is OK for Uhura, I wish they could have picked someone else... Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV Series 2022– ) - Celia Rose Gooding as Nyota Uhura, Cadet Nyota Uhura - IMDb But I am sure she will grow on me.
I wasn't really getting the Uhura feel, but then again you have to give them a lot of leeway given that this is supposed to be her first time on tour. It's understandable that someone would grow into the complete confidence that Uhura showed in TOS.
I like the idea of comms officers also being linguists, they didn't really consider that until Star Trek: Enterprise and I don't see it in TOS.
And this actor looks too old for a supposed younger version of Kirk. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (TV Series 2022– ) - Paul Wesley as Captain James T. Kirk, James T. Kirk - IMDb
He looked and sounded almost nothing like him.
Well it seems whatever else we may disagree on your trekiness is within acceptable parameters.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And here ya are bein' a hypocrite, you oughta know that just because something isn't necessarily hereditary that doesn't mean there isn't genetic factors.
Since I never said there were no genetic factors, I am not a hypocrite (or rather contradicting myself as hypocrisy requires a principle and not mere contradiction).
A factor a very broad term. Rain is a factor in getting wet, and so is wearing a raincoat. Yet failing to wear a raincoat does not necessarily mean you will get wet.
Causation is best described by a series of necessary conditions OR a single sufficient condition, OR a set of preexisting necessary conditions with a potential final necessary condition.
The last necessary condition becomes the sufficient condition within context.
There are not percentages in causality, there are percentages in quantities. If 50% of people who get wet could avoid being wet by wearing a raincoat that does not mean raincoats are 50% the cause of dryness nor that the absence of raincoats are 50% the cause of wetness.
People who wear raincoats don't get wet. People who don't wear raincoats do get wet (if it rains).
50% may come from a statistic but it has nothing to do with the mechanics of the phenomenon. This is why they say statistics lie, because people who use statistics without understanding deductive logic shoot themselves in the foot and produce pseudoscience.
We seem to actually share a fairly similar opinion about how sexualities form.A combination of genetic predispositions and experience. Although you like to be obtuse about it all.
No, this was obtuse, well more like misleading and imprecise:
genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior.
As I explained, that doesn't mean anything. All possible reasonable interpretations are easily disproved. Therefore it's pseudoscience, and it doesn't really matter whether it's a game of telephone or it was misleading and imprecise in the original paper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Even Wylted is calling for his ban.
Is that some kind of high bar in your opinion?
I suspect Wylted when he's coming off the (probable) antidepressants is about as reliable as a prize wheel.
Nobody cares if we ban one piece of shit user.
I care if people start getting banned because they're not popular. (or because they broke the rules in a way everyone else does too)
Have a think about how many people and what sort of people are going to come join you in that choice.
Failing to ban someone isn't condoning everything they say. Oromagi is choosing principle over mayhem and it's as simple as that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You can't be for real dude.
- At its core, debate was invented and still mostly exists as practice for law in a democratic society. If we want to attract real debaters, we must demonstrate our respect for laws.
Integrity has more profound justifications than just attracting debators, but the conclusion is the same.
BTW I saw the video where a white object was pointed out in Floyd's mouth, the defense used it in the trial. I don't know or care if TWS produced it when asked but it did exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
@Kaitlyn
You are honestly defending him just because you don't have many allies here.
Who knows who is actually saying this, but anyone who goes onto a debate site and starts talking about allies (and presumably enemies) is working against the purpose of the enterprise.
Debate is important because our stupid political-ape games don't always (or often) bring us closer to the truth.
We should be concerned about the assertions and the arguments, not the people.
Then again, the metric of an argument is implicitly popularity in the formal "debate" section. Having a large alliance would be critical to get those ratings.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The biological complexes in charge of attraction- because its not a single chromosome or gene or anything like that- aren't necessarily quantifiable by ease because we don't exactly know. We have ideas, but we don't have an exact estimation. Doesn't mean we have no estimation.
It could be a hundred different genes on every chromosome and still, if it was genetically deterministic we could easily tell by patterns of inheritance (which is a form of statistical association so obvious little analysis is needed).
For instance, people in Africa have dark skin. Their children have dark skin. Their ancestors have dark skin.
Thus we can conclude that dark skin, or at least dark skin that is not triggered by solar radiation; is genetically determined.
If children of Africans were "at random" light skinned we wouldn't be so sure.
Children of heterosexuals are "at random" homosexual, or bisexual, or a bunch of other sexuality.
------------
There is another reason to doubt the claim of genetic predestination in this matter.
documented homosexual behavior in more than 450 species <- posted by FLRW
Needless to say 450 different species are only going to have ancient genes in common. The claim I've seen (such as from oromagi) is that homosexual genes somehow make for good uncles and aunts (and even this requires that the gene is not fully deterministic, a risk factor if you will).
Yet living in large family groups with shared child-rearing responsibility is NOT a universal or even common trait in the animal kingdom. We should see a clear pattern in those 450 involving a common ancestor with those traits (shared child-rearing) if the theory was true.
----------
A much simpler explanation is available: Sex feels good. Animals do what feels good. Human brains create sexual orientations because our psycho-sexuality is excessively complicated and complicated systems have diverse "failure" modes.
===============
It is easy for someone with a basic understanding evolutionary biology to form complex and engaging stories explaining any morphology or behavior. I can do it for males murdering other males for a female for example.
Just as a murderers (nazis) might use evolution and nature as excuses for their actions, a sexual deviant feeling persecuted and ostracized by society might use evolution and nature as a source of validation.
This is the appeal to nature fallacy.
Further....its just so-obtuse the way you argue, its very interesting. Honestly not gonna engage too much, you don't seem particularly invested in hearing people out.
I read everything I respond to. You engage whoever you like, I won't go chasing your opinion.
I'll be plain- the idea that gay people "choose" to be gay is both correct and incorrect.
Speaking of not hearing people out and saying obtuse things: I said nothing about choosing. In fact no one did. You should read more carefully.
Frankly its ridiculous that this concept has to be explained to someone who has such clear diction.
It's more ridiculous than you know given that I'm a sexual deviant in multiple ways.
The difference between me and say oromagi or the typical LGBT activist is that I am an objectivist. I did choose to be an objectivist, and I accept then the responsibility of rationality.
Though it may be tempting to presume I was "born this way" I cannot make such an assumption without evidence nor can I fall into fantasies about genetic determinism and how I'm "supposed to be this way".
There are more options than genetic predetermination and conscious choice. Far more; because the human organism is a living system that responds to stimuli both chemical and intellectual below the level of conscious will.
For instance my personal belief is that sexual orientation forms at some formative point before puberty but well after learning to speak. It forms as a response to external stimuli. The mechanism of formation is complicated, so complicated that the pattern is not (as of yet) discernible. Genetic factors may (probably do) influence the probabilities by biasing this formation process.
That is not genetic pre-determination, that does not mean there are "gay genes" or "trans genes". Certainly not at "25%" (correlation?).
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So is that.....The Crab doesn't know what the Monkey is doing.....Or the Monkey doesn't know what the Crab is doing.... And neither of them know what something else is doing?
...
TWS used the phrase "Don't know what they're doing" to imply a purely mechanic behavior with no abstract intelligence.
This does not fit the evidence. Monkeys learn, crabs don't (or don't to anywhere near the same degree).
A monkey doesn't just "have sex" whenever they smell the right pheromone (even if pheromones will put them in the mood no different from humans).
They form relationships and for monkeys probably have a basic theory of mind for others. i.e. they can put themselves in another's point of view.
They do not "miss" the fact that some monkeys are male and some are female. They are not "tricked" by some obscure but simple stimuli. If they bang each other they "know what they're doing".
A crab (or any arthropod) barely has a brain to speak of and it shows. Time and again we see that things like a single pheromone, sound, image, or color can reliable produce the same behavior; even if it leads to harm.
Crabs don't know what crabs are doing in the sense TWS used. Monkeys do know what monkeys are doing.
I've jumped in at the end here, so it all seems very irrational relative to School Systems and LBGTQ.
Blame FLRW, randomly inserting "the animals are gay too" as if it was relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Why do people keep changing their names? It's bizarre.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
A crab doesn't know what it's doing. A monkey does.Neither “knows” what it’s doing.
You don't know what you're doing. See, it's easy enough to completely abandon a theory of mind. Just happens to be irrational.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The damn thing doesn’t even know what it’s doing, it just does it. Even monkeyed masturbate once they realize doing it provides the same pleasure as sticking it another butthole or vagina of its fellow primate does. human beings know what they are doing as they make a conscious choice to do so.
A crab doesn't know what it's doing. A monkey does. There isn't the slightest objective reason to accept the poorly defined claim that the consciousness of homo sapiens sapien is so qualitatively different that you feel entitled to say non-humans don't know anything.
That attitude was a brief aberration from the 19th century departing from the straight forward consensus of previous human history and an objective and rational review of the evidence. Namely that if you can explain an animal's behavior by putting yourself in their shoes, you're probably right.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Across cultures, 2% to 10% of people report having same-sex relations. In the U.S., 1% to 2.2% of women and men, respectively, identify as gay. Despite these numbers, many people still consider homosexual behavior to be an anomalous choice.
"The Global Divide on Homosexuality" was not "an anomalous choice" it was "should society accept homosexuality".
And the prevalence of a behavior is in no way sufficient evidence that it should or should not be socially accepted. There are other sexual orientations that could easily be 1% of the population.
However, biologists have documented homosexual behavior in more than 450 species, arguing that same-sex behavior is not an unnatural choice, and may in fact play a vital role within populations.
It's like you're a chat bot copy pasting standard trivia. This has nothing to do with the subject, unless you're claiming that anything that happens in nature should be something young children are exposed to.
By analyzing the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K., they concluded that genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior.
1.) No such coherent biological concept "accounts for X of behavior". Does that mean 25% of the reason someone has homosexual attractions is genetic? Non-sense, without a divisible quantity you can't have "25%" of something. For example if they identified a hormone that made you attracted to the same sex and said gene expression produced 25% of the observed levels that would qualify. Clearly that is not the case here.
Does that mean 25% of homosexuals are homosexual because of genes and the rest aren't? Well then either the rest aren't really homosexual or homosexuality is not genetic.
2.) Almost certainty referring to statistical correlation, and this is a psuedoscientific way to report correlation.
3.) 8-25%? Those are some serious error bars.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
On Wednesday, Miguel, who is running in Florida House District 20, posted across his Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Parler accounts the same message, signed with his name: "Under my plan, all Floridians will have permission to shoot FBI, IRS, ATF and all other feds ON SIGHT! Let freedom ring!"
Finally some effective solutions... ;)
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Did you ever have a gay friend that committed suicide? I did.
That is a really dirty attempt at emotional manipulation. It is insane to suggest that someone is "driven" to suicide because unrelated children aren't being indoctrinated, and if that isn't the suggesting it's a red herring.
Variants – subtly different versions – of genes linked with gender identity might simply be part of a spectrum of gender and sexuality maintained throughout human history.
@oromagi also similarly claims homosexuality can be genetically profiled. I found it fairly impossible to verify this claim due to paywalls; but IF that was true it would mean a genetic mapping could allow us to see who's faking and who is genuine no? Long before puberty in fact it could be predicted.
Would you accept that premise? No "gender affirming" care for anyone who doesn't have the genes? Any "genetic heterosexual" who claims to be bi gets removed from the environment because clearly he or she is being caught up in a social contagion?
Created:
-->
@Savant
Objective social morality ('human rights') takes precedence over any other standard of judging human action. It wouldn't be objective if it didn't, or in other words they wouldn't be rights if arbitrary nation states were more important.
I support Israel over the nutcases not because Israel "got there first", but because the Israeli government claims to better morals and follows through. For example they seem to understand that you shouldn't just kill religious minorities or blow up their holy sites even if they happen to be sitting on top of your holy site.
their penisesNice of you to use gender-neutral language 😉
It was plural....
Created:
Shoot someone else got to the email before me, that would have been fun.
Epic troll.
Created:
Hillary Clinton should be in jail for mishandling classified emails!
Destroying evidence more like
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I'd like to hear from my fellow DARTers regarding the actionability of comments like this.
- How many DARTers think a comment like this is actionable based on present CoC or should be actionable based on an improved Code of Conduct?
Anything besides pure and absolute pacifism is actionable by the previous CoC, as I pointed out when I first came here.
I don't remember reading anything in the new CoC that would apply, nor do I think anything should apply.
You can't mandate moral conclusions in site rules and then claim the result is anything but the shallow appearance of debate.
Police notification?
It would be hilarious if someone decided on police notification for this but not the whole time he was talking about pedophilia being potentially harmless.
Created:
Posted in:
When you say it's about a person's means of communication, maybe. As in all of these filthy personal attacks have no place in debate.
When you say "delete those ugly threads" you're saying that the idea is the problem. Very much a case of "who decides".
The only safe overton window is a crystal sphere. You don't know from first principles what you might see when looking out that glass so to block any part necessarily reduces the potential certainty you can have.
There have to be limits in certain contexts, but a debate site is one place where surely there should be no limits on the range of speculation or assertion (as opposed to intentional, obtuse, and persistent use of demonstrable fallacy).
People who talk about "fire in a crowded theater" are copy pasting an idea that may have merit anywhere else. This is not a crowded theater, and to the exact extent topics are censored it is not a debate site.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
How hard would it be for a government agency to send the correct electrical current to the portion of the brain that controls a person's perception to make them think they are being abducted? They have experiments done to them and the probing is just the disgusting way they enjoy ending their mission.
Alien abduction stories = homosexual government rapists who apparently can't find volunteers for their experiments and would rather induce a specific hallucination than simply sedate their victim
So many interesting hypotheses...
They are feeding junk to the public and raking in billions of dollars for "research" like the SETI program, which has stated that they still have not found anything regarding alien life.
I don't think SETI is that expensive... It's not like they build any radio telescopes just for it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The snark is strong with you today :)
One might point out that the BLM insurrection involved theft and arson as opposed to boycott, but who really cares anymore?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Consent is morally relevant on the principle of liberty. Liberty is morally relevant because of the universal value of self-determination in volitional intelligence.No intelligence, no liberty, no consent. For instance it doesn't matter if a tree can't consent to being climbed. There is no discerning will to contradict.Imagine the tree gains sentience during your climb (and also that you do the climb blindfolded -- much like we can't see who will be birthed before they are). Some big trees won't feel anything and will be fine, and perhaps they might even enjoy the climb as back-scratching or tickling. Some smaller trees may warp a bit under your weight, causing them a fair amount of suffering. Other smaller trees might snap in half and die horribly.
Sorry for the delay, I congratulate you on being able to grasp and modify an analogy. Many can't seem to.
You don't know how much pain/suffering/discomfit you are going to cause the tree beforehand (because you are blindfolded). You don't know whether your climb is too heavy for the tree. You just do it blind with dire consequences at stake.
Yet even here it is the pain and suffering that may have moral consequence. Not the lack of consent while no mind existed to consent.
Now if it was possible for the mind to look back on its life and send information to the past that consent could absolve people before the mind existed of responsibility in their role. That is not possible however.
So we can agree that those who choose to behave in such a way that may cause harm to a potential being cannot be absolved by means of consent. That does not mean that any risk of harm is unacceptable or that the predicted ratio of utility cannot be considered.
We can also take an extreme example of someone who is unconscious after a serious motorcycle accident and has no legal guardian/spokesperson to speak for his/her best interests. This person is unable to consent, both literally and legally. This person will simply die if nothing is done. If we apply your logic of "can't consent" and "no discerning will to contradict", we could justify bashing this person to death, or putting him/her atop a large waterslide just to see how he/she would ragdoll down? Does that seem reasonable to you?
Of course not. It's your theory (from what I can tell) that would claim that the person must be left to die. As you say, they can't consent to anything.
That is not my theory, my theory is that there was a discernible will as established by the previous actions of the person. So much so that even if they are dead on arrival their body is still their property and must be disposed of in accordance with their last wishes.
My theory is that there is an enormous difference in many contexts (such as this one) between "unable to consent due to temporary condition or language barrier" and "unable to consent due to not existing".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
It's definitely me lol.
You immediately resorted to trying to shame someone for being adopted and you think you're well adjusted? You sound like bad news, I wish good luck to anyone with the misfortune of having to deal with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Interestingly, Biggar is an Anglican Priest currently on book tour promoting his new book Colonialism which re-appraises and asserts the value and moral worth of British invasions, colonializations, and slavery
I have no idea who this guy is, but I'm calling BS. It is extremely unlikely a modern commentator defends slavery and thus extremely likely that you are peddling misinformation here.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey loser, I’ve been married for 29 years with two kids.
and this is how you choose to spend your retirement?
Created:
Posted in:
@Kaitlyn it continues to make my day when I see people resisting the intellectual cancer that is appealing to authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consentThere is no person before existence, and without a person there is no applicable concept of consent.If a potential harm to a human is about to occur, then consent is required. Since bringing sentient beings into existence is a potential harm, then consent is required.I don't think the initial non-existence matters here. Whether consent can be given or not doesn't necessarily determine whether consent was given (which is what is important -- that's what helps us deal with potential harm in an ethical way), and thus it doesn't matter whether consent can be given.
It does matter if consent can't be given because no free will exists to give it vs unable to get consent due to inability to communicate (like knocking on a door and no one answers so you assume you can repaint the house).
Consent is morally relevant on the principle of liberty. Liberty is morally relevant because of the universal value of self-determination in volitional intelligence.
No intelligence, no liberty, no consent. For instance it doesn't matter if a tree can't consent to being climbed. There is no discerning will to contradict.
So you are operating under an incorrect theory that "consent" is fundamentally some kind of bandaid to make potential harm due to an interaction acceptable. It acts that way under the right circumstances but that is not why it matters or exists.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Here, let me help... It means: "the United States will no longer provide aid to your country until we can be assured that the money we send you is being used for the reasons were sending it"
You're quite the speech writer when translating the thoughts of democrats. Unfortunately the skill is just another double standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent
There is no person before existence, and without a person there is no applicable concept of consent.
It may be immoral to create a person knowing they will inevitably suffer in unusual ways but not due to a lack of consent.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Eh, nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them.You're the idiot who will walk away thinking "that you was so nice to be concerned about my family"
Where did the goalposts go? Where is the text? Only allusions to tropes remain. Here is a quote:
"I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the
investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can
assure you."
Don't let the plain meaning of text confuse you, you have a conspiracy theory to stick to after all.
I wonder what "If you don't fire the prosecutor you don't get the billion dollars" means? It must be code for "If you don't fire the prosecutor you don't get the billion dollars".
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Just like the claim that Trump was withholding aid from Ukraine to pressure for a fake investigation.We literally have the official notes of the call taken in real time
Post them. Oh wait, you keep forgetting there was no threat in that.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Most of the stupid things Trump is known for was said right out in the open with no clue he said anything stupid.
"I got hairy legs that turned uh... uh... oh... blonde in the sun, and the kids used to come up and reach in the pool and rub my legs down and to watch my hair come back up again.
So I learned about roaches. I learned about kids jumping on my lap... and I love kids jumping in my lap."
If you're going to try and pounce on something someone says do it for a real reason.
It was hearsay when I 'pounced' and it remains hearsay. Just like the claim that Trump was withholding aid from Ukraine to pressure for a fake investigation.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
rofl, it's always hearsay with Trump isn't it. Unlike Biden who brags about his illegal corruption to a room full of cameras.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Sounds about right.
I've watched a few controversial court cases from start to finish, Rittenhouse case, Floyd murder trial, the election trial in Maricopa county.
I was left with the distinct impression that nobody really cares about laws and facts, the reporting will have very little to do with them and even when something damning happens even judges will pretend like it didn't happen.
Trust levels: 0%
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
[Best.Korea] Liberalism is good, but its hard to keep the greedy government away from other people's money when its so easy to raise taxes or print.We all know that social welfare systems destroy people economically.Free food for those who dont have food is somewhat okay, but free or semi-free healthcare? Thats too much drain on the economy and it gets abused too much.
Maybe it is hard, but strategies have been developed. We're living with some of them in place and I'd say they worked a hell of a lot better than the previous state of affairs.
I can certainly write a constitution which makes it illegal for a government to act unethically in an overt manner. Blockchains have the potential to decentralize several sources of corruption and tyranny (including currency and voting). We can improve upon the techniques of adversarial veto.
Until we've tried everything all at once it's far to soon to start declaring something impossible.
@Vegasgiants, I've given you plenty of chances to say something meritorious or at least interesting. You are simply repeating yourself and what you said originally was either trite slogans or bald faced conceptual errors. You also feel comfortable dismissing the opinions of others with no explanation.
The point being if I don't respond to you, don't hold your breath.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
As long as the people can vote they will vote for social programs. Lots of them
What people vote for depends on what they believe. You aren't Hari Seldon and aren't in any position to rule out belief systems. The past has proven large populations can believe incredibly diverse things.
That is a rock solid guarantee
It's as solid as your math.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Do you believe in democracy?
Not as a god.
I believe in objective morality which necessarily implies that no authority is final.
In other words murder is still wrong no matter who says otherwise. Majorities, kings, priests are all simply wrong if they say otherwise.
Because you will never have a libertarian government under democracy
You seem pretty confident about that. I doubt you have sound reasoning behind that prediction.
The barely taxed USA of the past (at least the free states) after the 1812 war was simultaneously a democracy and a very liberal (economically).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Vegasgiants
Then why did you ask?[IwantRooseveltagain] To highlight your hypocrisy and provide you with a “mirror in the bathroom” moment.
Well I didn't have a mirror in the bathroom moment, in fact you're about 15 years too late to catch me in such obvious emotional manipulation. More like a sigh as a watch a barely clothed hooligan run down the street again (that's you in this story).
[IwantRooseveltagain] You bitch about Americans who “don’t create” and you are one of those Americans.
You assume.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You have been a “free man” all your life. What have you done with that opportunity?
I believe my point was that I am not a free man, at least not as free as I should be nor (economically) as free as a Chinese man is.
If I added up all the time government regulation impeded my productive output it would cause a depression, and it's hard to overestimate the losses from taxes and inflation.
[Vegasgiants] There is no libertarian country on earth.....for a reason
There are no perfect spheres in the universe, but there are objects that are much closer to spheres than others. There are more liberal nations and less liberal nations both in space and time. The more liberal countries produce wealth and culture faster on average and with few exceptions with clear explanations.
You are merely constructing a strawman, the inverse of the "communism has never been tried" fallacy.
Now tell me, if communists can claim after dozens of purported attempts that communism has never been tried; and might still work, how much more rational would it be to claim that liberalism could work provided you're claiming it has never been tried?
An untested idea would surely be more reasonable than an idea that has been tested 20 times and failed every time?
That is not even the case, the answer is that earnest efforts to try communism have been made and there is no indication of paradise over that hill. In contrast every step closer to the liberal [libertarian in your subverted terminology] ideal has only made things better.
Imperfect liberalism brings all the good things in life, civilization is inherently more liberal than pre-civilization, why would moving closer to perfect liberalism be expected to do anything but succeed?
The USA is a perfect example. It isn't the failure of liberalism that leads to corruption but its success. Too much wealth, too much power; without a system to control it evil men wield it for tyranny. The USA had a better system than most, and the world changed to emulate the USA. We see now the flaws in the system, but that flaw is not now dying liberty.
Then why did you ask?[Greyparrot] Yeah, Fanchick could have skipped the false pretensions of knowledge seeking and just go straight to the Ad Homs.That would be more logical and in character. Maybe someone hacked his account?
A slight detour only. He got to it pretty quick.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
We'll see, one has an excellent shelf life.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You seem to have truth confused with power. A bit more common of an error than confusing a variable with its derivative.
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain] Pointless? I have no doubt you haven’t done much to contribute to society. You don’t create anything or pay much in taxes because you have a small income.
Then why did you ask?
Created:
Free men build strong civilizations. The strength is corrupted by people who know how to consume but not create[IwantRooseveltagain] What exactly do you create? What’s your contribution to society?
Why, looking for more pointless ad hominem material?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
China and India will surpass us based on simple demographics. Once they get a strong middle class there is no way we can compete
Nothing to do with demographics. Everyone is building shit there because the government doesn't steal 40% of the product.
US claims to love freedom and attacks it (economically). CCP claims to hate property, but respects it (well more).
Strange world.
But what's clear is there is no successful country anywhere on earth begat cone close to a libertarian model. Certainly not in a democracy
There are no outstanding nations that were not more liberal than neighbors at the time when wealth was created.
Free men build strong civilizations. The strength is corrupted by people who know how to consume but not create. In its death throws the civilization makes a mark in history books as confused imperialists lash out (but always fail to save the civilization since they are the ones destroying it).
A sure as the day follows night prosperity follows economic freedom. You constructed a bizarre strawman about some platonic ideal. It has nothing to do with my theories and conclusions.
Every nation successful and unsuccessful supports my theory.
You can be rich and yet have the government drag you away because you're a sexual deviant.[IwantRooseveltagain] Which sexual deviants are being persecuted by the government and you are concerned about?
I know it's unfair to expect you to keep up, but try. This was an abstract point, see thought experiment.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
My god. You think people have a better life in those countries compared to the US based on their economic model???
You like to move the goalposts. There is more to living life than economics. You can be rich and yet have the government drag you away because you're a sexual deviant. That's not good.
I'll tell you one thing, productive efficiency will inevitably eclipse the US in those countries. Certainly it's already happened in China.
You may have noticed they actually make things, refine steel, build factories.
This 'law' of economics is not complicated, governments waste money (anyone who can steal rather than produce does); the more money going to be wasted the less useful things are done. Their quality of life is going up and ours is going down and at some point they will cross and you will still be so deep in the well of Keynesian fallacy that you don't even know why it happened.
Then you should move there.
And let the parasites have the entire western world? How about he moves to a free American state, they peaceful divorce; and you can run socialism experiment #251 with volunteers instead of slaves.
Created: