Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] Can I quote you on that?
Always
[IwantRooseveltagain] Dershowitz is a wack job who drove his ex-wife to suicide and spent time on Jeffrey Epstein’s child molesting island.
Behold @Double_R and @oromagi, the shape and form of appeals to authority. This is always where it ends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Fine, given the definition you posted gender dysphoria is a mental illness and so is this forum and Christianity. Happy?
Created:
[RationalMadman] I am not sure anyone should be chill about intelligence agencies taking a strong look at any active member of this website. I think that you of all people should be aware of the implications of that.
1.) You're blowing the potential way out of proportion. There is barely anyone here. Public forums are where people debate "extremism" but not where they plan it (unless they're stupid in which case they'll do it on Twitter).
2.) Intelligence agencies don't shut down sources of information. They create traps and ambushes. If the government paid agents to develop their own anti-government plots (like you know Jan 6 or Whitmer kidnapping) we would at least have more members wouldn't we? Maybe these agents have some interesting points.
3.) If you're that afraid of the government just looking, you can't have a very high opinion of their integrity. Smart.
4.) As discussed when I first signed up, I'm safe; or if I am not safe (because there is a Person of Interest style Machine operating) it wouldn't matter if I was on the same site with an islamist. I'm basically the new enemy of the state anyway. I'm taking that risk just by saying the things I say no matter where I say it.
You know the previous CoC allowed for hyperbolic calls for death of public figures right?
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] That’s exactly what Giuliani did to take down the MOB in New York. He used low level mobsters’ testimony to take down the MOB bosses.Was that fascism? You are an idiot. I can’t say that enough.
No, the fascism is you believing that a guilty plea is proof of guilt.
... and for the record I have concluded plea deals are immoral and a dangerous temptation to public corruption.
If they couldn't charge him because they couldn't extradite him what's happening right now?[IwantRooseveltagain] It has nothing to do with being able to extradite. The law in New York is the clock stops if you leave the state.
Ready for an appeal to authority? Here it comes:
That's not what Alan Dershowitz says, are you a legendary lawyer?
Created:
[RationalMadman] I would also like to inform you that Mike said he lives in America as a Russian Immigrant. This site is actually hosted in the US, even though he implied differently before.
That makes censorship less likely.
If there is no directly illegal content on the site, 1st amendment counter-suit is almost guaranteed to succeed. Mike could get rich. Chill. (so long as he isn't an associate of a republican federal level campaign, then he's doomed)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let me be crystal clear: That is not what a mental disorder is to meLet me stop you right here. There is no "means to me" in a world of facts and logic. There is definitions to world's and a reality in which those definition's exist.
Your metaphysics is wrong. Reality exists, but nothing has a name until we give it. It's up to us to find useful concepts and agree on symbology. I tried to help you understand but there is only so much I can do.
I have no interest in participating in a system of definitions that route back to the arbitrary assertions of supposed authorities.So your a conspiracy theorist. Gotcha.
lol, that's genuinely funny. A conspiracy to commit arbitrage. Reddit mods beware!
Well I wish you luck fighting those battles over what authority to trust, I wouldn't count on any resolutions soon.
Created:
Posted in:
No, a ton of people know there is no sane theory of crime here.Bullshit. If there was no crime how did Michael Cohen go to jail? I didn’t hear you say his conviction was wrong.
Double_R spoke of how fascists take over a country. I cannot make this next sentence large enough:
When the government extorting guilty pleas (and further cooperation) is the only evidence a people need to believe there is a crime, that is when the fascist state can accelerate its growth by suppression of political opposition.
Trump left the state and moved to Florida. Under New York law that stopped the clock on the statute of limitations.
If they couldn't charge him because they couldn't extradite him what's happening right now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
He might of done the crimes. That is a known fact, and no one is claiming he didn't (not a lot of people anyways).
No, a ton of people know there is no sane theory of crime here.
The charges are incoherent. They should never have been brought as a matter of law and any judge who saw the claim should have sought the disbarment of the prosecutor.
There are now a lot of democrats that could be subject to that (including Joe Biden).
There are actual crimes to charge Biden with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Expressing an opinion that person A, B, or C shouldn't have the right to spread disinformation is not fascism.
You never fail to find your double standards.
Attacking the free press as a whole as being enemies of the state... is.
rofl, you just keep trying to creep along. Shift one word at a time. Pretend as if the facts don't matter, but I'm afraid they do and I'm afraid I'll need to be drugged before I don't catch you at it.
Enemy of the people, not the state.
Not free press, propaganda arm of the deep state.
Not disinformation, dissenting information.
The former, as described, is a dialog about what should be allowed in our society. The latter is the opposite of that.
The former is sedition against the constitution. The latter is an identification of malice and untrustworthy. The end.
That's the very essence of fascism. That's exactly how people like Hitler came into power.
That had nothing to do with false flags, targeted censorship, and organized propaganda under the guise of press I'm sure.
He's the prime example of a fascist.
No Benito Mussolini is, and the differences are stark. Mussolini would have been proud of our military industrial complex though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
1.) I assume if you're asking here you aren't going to university. Smart move, yes some companies will put it on their job requirements; but the problem is that it will now take you 8 years of work to pay for a degree AND they won't teach you much so you still have a high chance of getting fired.
Finally company HR policies today are so ritualized and distant that they won't even tell you that you're being fired because you weren't able to do the job. I have seen companies I work for do this over and over. The bring in some poor sucker who came from a computer science degree and this guy doesn't know what a pointer is. He sits around for six months waiting for someone to tell him what to do.
Then one day he "moves on" and I find out they let him go and said it was general cutbacks. It wasn't general cutbacks, they are just turning over looking for someone to magically solve the problems they (management) can't articulate. It's so sad everyone.
2.) If you want value for money in education go for specific certifications. If you like a skilled trade (like plumbing or welding), do it; the pay is great and the path towards owning a personal company is straight as a laser.
If you like IT get one of those BS code or system certs. System admin. Network technician, etc.. You'll probably never be your own boss but the pay is again excellent and you get almost all the benefits the university nubs get while being half as likely to be fired.
3.) Look at the tax code. It matters! Why? They steal more money the more money you earn. Your quality of life depends on your disposable income. You can't dispose of it when they steal it. To maximize disposable income you need to minimize regular expenses even more than you need to maximize wages.
You can sit yourself in NYC and be making 200k but they will take most of it and the rest you will spend on rent for a closet.
Work remotely if you can and live in the middle of nowhere. If you can't live in the cheapest place you can. Pay down debt fast. Plan your life by expansions not "all up front so long as I can afford the monthly payment". Own, don't rent (unless you're the owner who is renting to someone else).
Land is the most stable of assets. (watch out for property taxes, some states have crazy ones)
4.) Don't invest in stocks. Don't do 401k. Anything tied to the US dollar and stock market is unreliable. They (the fed and the government) will crash it again and they will bail out the banks again, that will blast inflation again, and the real value of your investments will turn to shit.
One exception: health savings account, everybody has medical expenses, unlike 401k you can use the money soon and you will soon(ish) tax free!
Investing isn't something most Americans need to worry about for the first 10 years of their life. Why? You're probably in deep debt because of mortgage, and car, and (hopefully not) education loans.
Do you think you can beat the interest rate on your loans by using a stock broker (or choosing investments manually?) You can't, don't even try. Pay down the debt.
Sure you can spare 10k here and there to take advantage of special panics, but those are not regular, not reliable. You should keep $10k around anyway for emergencies.
5.) Don't store any significant wealth in USD. It drops like a rock, even bonds can end up losing real value. If you have no debt, can't buy land, you can't buy houses, buy crypto and precious medals. Those aren't investments they are just ways to hold on to your wealth. They will feel like investments as the world currencies are steadily diluted but that's an illusion.
6.) Don't have kids until you've found the one, don't have kids until you're net worth is over 80k. When you have kids plan to devote all your free time to them it's what you'll want to do anyway.
7.) Don't say something stupid like "I don't want kids, too much work." Kids reprogram your brain to make you happy. Not having kids (at least somewhere in your life) will cause you regret.
8.) Notice when something isn't working. If you think you'll be in a certain place for three years and it's been five; stop what you're doing and change strategies. You do not have time to spare just because you're 18. You want to be "basically" retired at 40-50. I say "basically" because almost everyone goes stir crazy without something productive to do. I think you should just keep making money till you drop from dementia, but when you're financially secure you can be chill about it. Be an independent contractor. That kind of stuff.
When you are 70, you don't have the body or the energy to do fun stuff. You can't raise kids (even if you adopt them). 70-90 is for cloud watching and obsessing over grandchildren.
I'm not saying all this because I did it all and I'm happy. I'm saying these are the things I've learned from my mistakes and the pain I've had (some of which through no fault of my own).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Every left wing politician is well aware of how Fox News is objectively a propaganda outlet, yet you don't hear this kind of language coming from any of them. That's the difference between a fascist vs someone who's not.
Sure I do. I'm constantly bombarded by clips of left-tribers saying person A, B, and C should be censored by state power because of "disinformation" this or absurd claim of "incitement" that.
Trump calls them what they are without calling for the violation of the 1st amendment.
Left-tribe more fascist than Trump on this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
[oromagi]THESIS: LGBTQ is an idealogy that goes against science.P1: An idealogy is a belief system, political philosophy, or worldview.P2: LGBTQ is not a belief system, poltical philosophy, or worldview.C1: Therefore, LGBTQ is not an idealogyLGBTQ includes people embracing every possible belief system, political philosophy, and worldview throughout history but does not, can not, represent any particular belief. Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn devoted his whole carreer trying to destroy LGBTQ people while also desperately, secretly trying to get fucked by every young man in New York. Roy Cohn did not share any particular belief with the LGBTQ community but nevertheless, Roy Cohn was LGBTQ.Lesbian, Gay, etc are adjectives used to describe people.Lesbiansim describes same sex attraction between women- not any belief or philosophy about same sex attractionTo say that LGBTQ is an ideology is to misunderstand the definition of LGBTQ, ideology, or both concepts. Since LGBTQ is not an idealogy, YouFound_Lxam's thesis stands disproved.
Not quite, you misrepresent the assertion:
[YouFound_Lxam] I believe that the LGBT community and ideology is not healthy for society, and must be eradicated (the ideology, not the people).
LGBT community and ideology = LGBT community U LGBT ideology.
"LGBT ideology" is two words. His claim is that there is such a thing as "LGBT ideology" not that there an ideology "LGBT", he makes it clear that LGBT ideology is distinct from "LGBT people".
You can say he's not using the words correctly till the cows come home, but that doesn't mean there isn't a concept he's talking about.
Analogy:
Americans are a people (diverse and all that). "Americans" is not an ideology, but there is an intelligible concept "American ideology".
What I would have led you to, had you answered my questions, was the fact that when people say "LGBT ideology" they do not mean "an ideology shared by all LGBT people (as defined by you as sexual outsiders)". Rather they mean "A specific widespread ideology which claims to be focused on protecting the rights, privileges, and respect of LGBT people."
That ideology need not be shared by every LGBT person, nor can it be taken at face value that anyone claiming to be promoting the rights, privileges, and respect for LGBT people must necessarily be doing that in accordance to a universally coherent moral framework.
Example:
I am a LGBT person (by your definition, I am a sexual outsider in more than one respect), however there is a articulable set of issues which some people claim are for the benefit of LGBT people which I find morally questionable and/or irrational besides.
P1: No human trait described by biologists as normal goes against science.
P2: BIologists have concluded that LGBTQ are natural and normal expressions of human sexual identity and gender.
C1: Therefore, LGBTQ does not go against science.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are complex and multifaceted, and there is a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests that they are not choices, but rather are deeply ingrained aspects of a person's identity.Studies show that sexual orientation and gender identity are not a result of any single factor, but rather are influenced by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. Additionally, research has shown that LGBTQ+ individuals are no more likely to experience mental health problems than non-LGBTQ+ individuals, and that attempts to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity can be harmful and ineffective.There is no scientific basis for discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
YouFound_Lxam may indeed believe that conversion therapy might be worth another try, and that is probably going to fail and hurt people every time.
However, that does not mean eradication is impossible. As you say "a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors"
As a scientific statement I find this claim to be less than impressive. That includes everything except a mystical soul. It is every measurable element of both nature and nurture.
It does bring a truth about biology to the fore front though, everything has a reason, and unlike say traveling the speed of light or moving a planet out of orbit the energies are small. All we need is knowledge, to define the problem is to see how it could be solved.
Whatever that combination that produces sexual deviants, those factors are controllable. Thus the moment of identification is the moment eradication becomes possible without violating any living person's rights.
I suggest that if you want to know the difference between ideology and sexual orientation it can be found in this question: If you could have been normal from the start, would you choose to be?
If the answer is "No" you are dealing with ideological actor.
Sexual orientation is "This is what I feel"
Ideology is "This is what I should feel"
Created:
I'm sure there were equitable courts for the most part, but I have seen more than few clown shows these past few years and based on this its getting worse.
I saw a jury ignore lethal doses of fentanyl in favor of knee on an unbroken barely bruised spinal chord because of politics.
I saw a judge ignore obvious and relevant perjury in Arizona because of politics.
Now I am seeing imaginary crimes being charged.
No evidence will matter, all that will matter is if there is one person on the jury who sees this for what it is. You don't need to play the game to get that. Of course Trump will play it "safe", just like the Jan 6 defendants who signed political confessions and pled guilty rather than face the highly dubious judgement of DC juries.
Created:
I would advise any would be victim of a kangaroo court clawing for legitimacy the same. You can decide if that fits whatever you're talking about.
Created:
The judge probably does hate him. The witch hunters wouldn't tolerate any other judge and they are easy to find in NY.
If I were in Trump's position I wouldn't give legitimacy to this kangaroo court by having a lawyer. I would show up, refuse to call him "your honor", tell him it's a circus and talk directly to the jury.
What are they going to do? Hold you in contempt and have a trial without a lawyer or defendant present?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
[ADOL] What specific experience are you talking about? Having unusual sexual desires? That's not even part of the definition of "trans" (although definitions and that movement have a complicated relationship).
- [oromagi] Exactly- it's hard to imagine a more diverse group than LGB much less throwing T in there. I've always hated the initialism and thought Queer was more inclusive and on point. The shared experience is being the sexual outsider within the hypocritically prudish American experience.
Alright for the purposes of our discussion queers and LGBT people are: All people sharing the experience of being the sexual outsider within hypocritically prudish American experience.
Earlier you said:
[oromagi] LGBT is obviously not an ideology but a way of describing an extrememly diverse group of people who have little in common with one another except a shared oppression and need for civil rights protection.
That's a bit more specific than "sexual outsider".
In theory there could be sexual outsiders who are not oppressed and are in no need of civil rights protections, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
1. Calls the free press "the enemy of the people"... Check
The "free press" censors the POTUS, circulates unfounded conspiracy theories, and is entirely biased towards the interests of super-corporate government intersection, so they're actually a propaganda machine for a fascist parasite living in our supposedly free republics = enemy of the people, not "free press" UNCHECK
2. Fills top positions in our government based on loyalty over competence... Check
If only he had there would be no impeachments, no investigations, and no DOJ violation of the 1st amendment through social media puppeting. UNCHECK
3. Sells himself to his supporters by portraying himself as the big tough guy who will protect them... Check
Nothing more facist than that I guess? Oh wait there is, actually implementing fascist policies like using the apparatus of the state to destroy all hint of credible dissent.
4. Explicitly advocates for the jailing of his political opponents... Check
I thought no one was above the law? UNCHECK
5. Often conflates any criticism against himself with hatred for the country... Check
Haven't seen that.
6. Incites his supporters to take up arms of he doesn't get the results he wants... Check
I remember when Mussolini famously said "I want you to peacefully and patriotically protest the fact that Greece isn't asking to join our empire." You got nothing. UNCHECK
7. Aligns himself with every dictator on earth while alienating himself and the country from our Democratic allies... Check
Examples include... the brexit movement of the UK. Yep that wretched dictator Nigel Farage... oh wait... it was a democratic uprising unless you're denying referendums are accurate.
8. Claims any election he didn't win is rigged... Check
Fascists rig elections, they don't complain about elections being rigged and demand security and auditability. UNCHECK
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
[oromagi] LOL- Yeah, sometimes, I lose track of the who in all the back and forth.
The story twists yet again, I just reviewed the full history and I was right the first time. I wrote (now with full and still correct tagging):
[TWS1405_2] Other species are irrelevant. They don’t possess sentience like human beings. They operate on innate pleasure principles, they don’t think about it, they just do.
- [oromagi] You missed the point. Ideology is exclusively human. If humans share a trait with most animals, that trait is not an ideology.
[TWS1405_2] The ideology is rooted in mental emotions rooted in physical pleasure (what Freud called the Id). The ideology is the theory derived from the emotive thought process, the physical pleasure is purely instinctual (i.e., innate). So no, it is to YOU who MISSED the POINT! Human beings are animals too, so naturally we will share some traits with other animal species. We love. Cats love. Dogs love. But we do not love all the same way, but we recognize the emotion amongst our species. Doesn’t mean we go up to other people and squirt our eyes at them before we smell their butts.[ADOL] No, it's you who missed the point. Dogs don't have ideology. If the claim is that a behavior must arise from ideology and it arises in animals that is false.It is not proof however that it does not arise from ideology. Non-humans kill, that doesn't mean human killing can't arise from ideology.
You thought that my italic was responding to your underlined, but it was responding to TWS's bolded. So this exchange of genius is:
[oromagi] You missed the point.
[TWS1405_2] So no, it is to YOU who MISSED the POINT!
[ADOL] No, it's you (TWS) who missed the point.
All clear? Now I'm going to bed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No, it's you who missed the point. Dogs don't have ideology.
- The animal analogy was mine. To claim that I missed the point of my own analogy is to demonstrate that you are not following the argument.
I put your tag on the wrong quote. I knew I was addressing TWS, hence the reply was addressed to him.
Dogs don't have ideology and dogs do engage in homosexual behavior. Therefore homosexual behavior is biological, not ideological.
That's too far, correct: Therefore it is not necessarily ideological.
Non-humans kill, that doesn't mean human killing can't arise from ideology.
- But obviously, the label KILLERS is not itself an ideology- its just a label for a specific set of people who share a specific activity in common. Likewise, LGBTQ is not an ideology, its just a label for a specific set of people who share a specific experience in common.
You can call it a duck, but if you use it to drive nails people will tend to conflate "duck" with "hammer".
What specific experience are you talking about? Having unusual sexual desires? That's not even part of the definition of "trans" (although definitions and that movement have a complicated relationship).
Behind a paywall:
Unfortunate...
Studies conducted on twins suggest that there are likely genetic causes of gender incongruence, although the precise genes involved are not known or fully understood. One study published in the International Journal of Transgender Health found that in 20% of identical twin pairs, if one twin was trans, the other was as well, compared to only 2.6% of non-identical twins where this was the case; researchers attribute this to their shared geneticsdouble blind? (twins were separated and didn't know the other was questioning gender)Not likely. Of the 1,894 known cases of twins separated at birth since 1922, only a about one third are identical= 631. Even applying your overgenerous trans frequency that only means a liklihood of 3 identical, seperated, trans twins around the world over the past century. No way to detect a 20% frequency in a sampling of three cases.
Logical conclusion, but it wasn't "my" trans frequency.
The point then is that twins in communion would effect each other psychologically and be subject to the same external stimuli in general. Such experiments would never form a strong argument for genetic determinism.
Created:
Posted in:
The ones who told the truth... well if that's condoning then some definitely did condone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Hey, out of curiousity. You saw a kid do it, was that in a video?
No, in person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
A study presented at the ASHG 2015 Annual Meeting found that the methylation pattern in nine regions of the genome appeared very closely linked to sexual orientation, with a resulting algorithm using the methylation pattern to predict the sexual orientation of a control group with almost 70% accuracy."
I would be interested to review that.
Studies conducted on twins suggest that there are likely genetic causes of gender incongruence, although the precise genes involved are not known or fully understood. One study published in the International Journal of Transgender Health found that in 20% of identical twin pairs, if one twin was trans, the other was as well, compared to only 2.6% of non-identical twins where this was the case; researchers attribute this to their shared genetics
double blind? (twins were separated and didn't know the other was questioning gender)
There has never been a human society/culture where only one gender evolved let alone survived without reproduction (which requires the other gender) to present day.
- Unreasoning idiocy. There has never been a human society/culture where left-handed people alone survived but you'd be a fool to claim that left-handedness is therefore a perversion of nature.
That's a dodge, it's obvious both sexes are required for reproduction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Other species are irrelevant. They don’t possess sentience like human beings. They operate on innate pleasure principles, they don’t think about it, they just do.
- [oromagi] You missed the point. Ideology is exclusively human. If humans share a trait with most animals, that trait is not an ideology.
The ideology is rooted in mental emotions rooted in physical pleasure (what Freud called the Id). The ideology is the theory derived from the emotive thought process, the physical pleasure is purely instinctual (i.e., innate). So no, it is to YOU who MISSED the POINT! Human beings are animals too, so naturally we will share some traits with other animal species. We love. Cats love. Dogs love. But we do not love all the same way, but we recognize the emotion amongst our species. Doesn’t mean we go up to other people and squirt our eyes at them before we smell their butts.
No, it's you who missed the point. Dogs don't have ideology. If the claim is that a behavior must arise from ideology and it arises in animals that is false.
It is not proof however that it does not arise from ideology. Non-humans kill, that doesn't mean human killing can't arise from ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Homosexuality is the slippery slope. You cannot justify homosexuality without justifying trans gender, trans species and other bad things.
Whether it is a slippery slope depends on the argument not the conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
If I condemn the violence then I condemn the action, no?
You have a point. No one on youtube but left-tribers are allowed to condone violence. Perhaps there are some on Rumble.
Now when I responded to Franklin the context was "Jan 6", referring to the whole protest. The left-tribe gleefully reminds people that not every single person in the BLM riots were burning things down and beating people half-to-death. "Mostly peaceful"
Well Jan 6 was mostly peaceful, and those that crossed the line to rioting were mostly just breaking windows and door locks. Barnes condoned entering the building.
My whole point was not to deny that leadership of right-tribe are mostly spineless, it's to point out that the base isn't. They swarm instantly towards anyone willing to cross the lines set by life-tribe institutions (almost always hypocritically).
(Im just talking in first person. I dont really have an opinion on 6th other than the violence and "invasion" was stupid. I do think it was staged though. )
It may have been goaded by the deep state but most of the people there were not infiltrators and they were angry enough to break windows. I saw a kid doing it.
I disagree strongly with the Tim Pool style narrative of "it was stupid it hurt the right-tribe", no the hypocritical coverage and one sided legal weaponization hurt the right-tribe. You can't win if one side is allowed to burn down cities and threaten supreme court justices but you aren't. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't; but with enough violence the balance of fear may be restored regardless of what the left-tribe propaganda machine says.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@hey-yo
1. Are those not satire shows more than actual journalist news agencies?
OAN and Newsmax try to be like a classic news agencies. It's important to note that most of these organizations don't actually operate investigative journalists (including CNN). Almost all are simply commentary and sumerization of AP, local channels, and directly related information (like a press briefing).
When you don't care about the truth why investigate?
Robert Barnes is a lawyer not a journalist, he hangs around with Viva Frei. They do commentary just like to so-called journalists and their legal commentary has (AFIK) been far more accurate than anyone else's. Barnes was sounding the alarm about Sydney Powell and that other lunatic while all the shills were tiptoeing.
Anyway Barnes said that the shaman guy sitting at Pelosi's desk didn't bother him at all. That the aloof arrogance of congress needed some popping (paraphrasing). That's farther than anyone else on entering the building.
2. I thought crowder did condemn actions on the 6th.
If you mean "the violence" yes, that's pretty universal. He never blamed it on Trump, never used the word "insurrection" outside of a joke (that I've heard).
I tried to do reasearch into crowder.
He's a weird case. Definitely satire, comedian, pretty edgy and I hate it when he delights in prison rape; but he also does investigate things personally and when he says "all links and data available on louder with crowder dot com" he means it. He backs himself up way better than the glorified bloggers of common elsewhere.
I mean he made certain claims about publicly available voter data and because he documented it so well I was able to confirm with state websites before they took down the API. You never get that kind of confirmation with "mainstream" claims.
What did fox news sensor. I did not see what happened.
All censorship is disinformation and propaganda. Has Covid censorship taught us nothing?
Sure, but what I'm talking about was super obvious. Trump was making a speech and the Fox News guy cut off the video feed as soon as Trump started talking about election fraud and stared right into the camera saying something about how "since Fox News can't confirm this we've decided not to platform the president"
Even thinking about it three years later makes my blood boil. Filthy enemies of the people.
This is not the exact clip I remember, this one is about the press secretary, looks like they kept doing it after I swore off Fox News forever: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-10/fox-cuts-white-house-briefing-trump-us-election-fraud-claims/12866816
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sidewalker is correct, you can't recreate the whole economy in miniature for the government. If you steal funds you're going to end up paying some private entity somewhere.
Grey parrot is correct, you can't stop a company from lobbying. They don't need to donate to a campaign, that's just the easy way. They could also run propaganda campaigns directly or through non-profits.
The solution is to stop stealing money.
A more detailed solution in that family of solutions would be to have the people directly pay for the government services they need or care about. Execution to be carried out by a case by case 'project triarchy' randomly selected from a pool of the twelve highest vote counts. Votes are proportional to fees or contributions.
All deliberations of each project triarchy are to be recorded and public under severe penalty. When a subcontract is required bids over a certain proportion of the total budget can be overridden by the stakeholders.
Lobbying potential triarchs would be inherently inefficient compared to the current problem for three reasons:
1.) The people control the flow of the money, not just in general but towards a specific project. If a lobbyist can't deliver, they won't get paid. This stands in stark contrast to the current state where the "leader" the lobbyist got elected decides whether to pay more and keep paying.
2.) Three are harder to corrupt than one. The random element means there is a one in 4 chance of getting someone you didn't support even if you picked winners and supported three candidates.
3.) If there is a suspicion of lobbying, the stakeholders (the general public for most intents and purposes) can prevent the corruption, giving the paid off triarch a perfect excuse and further making the act of lobbying a dubious investment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
One America News, Steven Crowder, Robert Barnes; probably some others but I don't know them all. I think newsmax caved but bounced back much quicker than most.
I know who lost out. Fox News. They lost me when the censored the president. Nothing could scream "we're propaganda not news" louder than that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
Stupidest thing i've heard all day. Get rid of the LGBTQ(IA+) community? Since when was the community an ideology?
There is an ideology more than there is a community. A community is a group of people who communicate. Anglophone is more of a community than "homosexuals" or "sexual deviants" and the term "LGBTQ(IA+)" almost exclusively refers to an ideological movement and not any kind of coherent classification of immutable characteristics.
Not sure where you got this "ideology" deal from.
Well it became pretty undeniable when people started saying things like "get glitter in the carpet that will never come out"
"communities" don't require delivering porn to children. An ideology might.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
If your society's protection of rights allows money to buy theft and slavery it's not very liberal is it.Our rights are protected in the USA now.
Not all of them, and those that are, imperfectly.
Probably freedom of speech is the nearest to perfection in precedent. Recent actions of the DOJ are adding demerits to the practice.
Human nature being what it is, it's still hard to assert those rights sometimes. I think it would be even harder in a libertarian society. Even now, a rich person can keep a case tied up in the court system beyond the ability of a poor person to press their case.
and what about inefficient courts, unreasonably long contracts, and endless stacks of law books are inherent to liberty?
We know that very rich people expect to get what they want, all the time. With fewer legal constraints, a rich person in a libertarian society would get their way all the time.
Or maybe the law is the weapon of those with the resources to wield it, and right now those are the evil rich (which are distinguished from the good rich by the fact that they're f'ing evil).
Feudalism is one possible outcome, with private police forces being openly advocated by libertarians now.
Private vs public is a conceptual trap laid by socialist thinkers. Good and evil don't care who hired you. A true and noble knight in feudalism is preferable to a fascist cop born out of a democracy. Certainly if by "private" you mean soldiers who are empowered to violate rights without check or balance this is unacceptable.
It is possible that a sufficiently cunning arrangement of government could separate government and economics, and that would be the death knell of money being dangerous. It was the belief and hope of the founding fathers that a sufficiently cunning constitution could protect rights better than the hybrid of democracy and fuedalism that existed in England.
They were right, it did work better. If it worked once, who is to say further improvements are impossible?
Humans will manage to corrupt any system.
If they themselves are corrupt, but we know we can impede corruption. Perhaps one day we will be able to create a society where the rate of virtue revival is greater than the rate of corruption. If we never try, we will never succeed and besides there is nothing else to strive towards except known failure.
I like our system because it institutionalized ways to balance power. That's why would-be dictators like Trump should be opposed. He exploited the cracks in our system and will probably get away with it, leaving the door open for someone smarter, like DiSantis, to smash the system altogether.
You are the victim of propaganda. Whatever Trump's failings and mistakes the only reason you think that is because of a concerted campaign to destroy him due to the threat he posed to the dominant corruption of the system.
The extent to which that campaign succeeded and the direct attacks on democracy by the deep state since is the prognosis for our republic: Dying, won't be long now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Jan 6 was a blip and instantly condemned by every right-wing news outlet.
I agree, but that caused the few right-tribe commenters and news agencies who didn't condemn it to grow. The base is more radical than the surface leadership on both sides.
That's how you tell a looming civil war from a political drama.
If the right-tribe leadership continues to resist they will snap before they bend. When they snap the new leadership will be far more unrestrained. The rapid escalation may catch the left-tribe off balance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I did not summarize your accusation, I copy and pasted it.
The inaccuracy was the false impression that police, family, friends, etc... all agreed it was a "troll" to claim to be non-binary. Some said he was self-hating.
His father was afraid he was homosexual.
Leftists don't say "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."
You really are living under a rock, or just desperately clinging to a delusional vision of our culture.
- Another mentally ill, depection based Right-Wing hate group living to troll.
Are you saying they aren't homosexuals?
- No and also don't give a single fuck.
Then what is the "depection"? (Also note this typo would be used as proof of 73 IQ if it came from Trump)
- Spokesperson Milo Yiannopoulos has been accused of advocating paedophilia. The allegation arose from several video clips in which he said that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can be "perfectly consensual" and positive experiences for the boys. Following the release of the video clips, Yiannopoulos resigned from his position at Breitbart, his invitation to speak before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was revoked, and a contract to publish his autobiography with Simon & Schuster was cancelled.
- Spokesperson Roger Stone was fired as Youth Coodinator for Bob Dole's campaign after it came to light that he was adverstising for sex with well-built athletes or military men.
Still looking for the "deception"...?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Without objective morality, why shouldn't I just kill you and take your money and then rape your wife if I can get away with it?Because you’d have to be watching your back all the time, sleeping only intermittently, trusting no one and having to do everything yourself. Who would want to live in such a society? Only sociopaths.
Oh no b9, sociopaths don't want to live in a society where everyone else are sociopaths. They want to live in a society where people believe in rights so they can abuse the social trust of the average person.
So why would you assume that the whole society would be like that? Are you angling towards Kant's imperative? That I must act in such a way that if all the world acted like me I would still prefer it?
Yet that too is no less an abstraction than my derivation of liberty. In fact I've shown before that Kant's imperative also leads to the same conclusion; I don't prefer to make that argument because there are many unnecessary steps and Kant's imperative obscures the fact that there is a choice.
Why act so? The whole world may act by a different principle and you may succeed at being the wolf in sheep's clothing.
No I agree with the libertarian platform more than any other political policy sheet in the world.When I consider the consequences of a libertarian society, I end up with feudalism. The rich and powerful would rule; others would align themselves with an individual ruler and be subservient to them (most likely “him”). Upward mobility would be rare.
Sounds like you have feudalism confused with wealth inequality. Feudalism certainly leads to wealth inequality, but wealth inequality doesn't imply feudalism.
This is because someone with the power to steal and enslave will make himself rich, yet a rich man does not necessarily have the power to steal and enslave. If your society's protection of rights allows money to buy theft and slavery it's not very liberal is it.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman Jeez you keep bringing this up. Let me join in the nonsensical and possibly inappropriate tangent:
You can't understand "being feminised and humiliated, that part will always elude me."
I can't understand why this gender roleplay is so engaging for either of you.
I'm bisexual, but these gender roles don't do anything for me. I don't feel emasculated as a bottom, I don't feel masculine as a top. I like dominance roleplay but I don't associate it with gender.
I find people changing the tenor of their voice to be creepy. I prefer everyone male and female to basically be the opposite of Dylan Mulvaney. People who do not give heed to gender roles exude a sense of dignity in my eyes. I do not mean men wearing dresses, a man who wears dresses (for example) is paying an enormous deal of heed to gender roles and showing the most shallow of affectations. As Tim Pool says, Dylan Mulvaney isn't how a woman acts, and I would clarify that isn't how a woman with an ounce of pride acts.
So basically you can tell that Dylan Mulvaney is like scratching a chalkboard to me. A straight up naked man with no fake voice, no makeup, no prancing about is infinitely more appealing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
If there is no morality, what is law but the game theory that allows us to live together, deserving no respect the moment the violence of the government can be escaped by concealment or first-strike?This is weird.
Alright, let me put it in terms you've probably seen before. Abrahamic types say god is the only source of morality, or more specifically objective morality, undeniable morality. So let's replace "god" with "objective morality"
Without objective morality, why shouldn't I just kill you and take your money and then rape your wife if I can get away with it?
Like all the equations agreeing at once Liberty minimizes conflict not because it was designed to, but because conflict comes from contradictions in values. If the only permissible values and behaviors comply with liberty their holders are by definition compatible.How can some values & behaviors being impermissible be compatible with liberty?
There are two flavors of the value of liberty. There is the value of one's own liberty which is inescapable and universal; and there is the value of everyone's liberty as an abstract value.
The first is a fact, the second is a choice.
Those who choose to value everyone's liberty, by that choice limit the range of values and behaviors they can logically hold. The liberty I was referring to (and am always referring to in a social ethics context) is the abstract liberty.
The set of behaviors that are eliminated is easily defined by this thought experiment: Imagine the world without moral peers. You alone, possibly immortal, non-sapient lifeforms as your only company. Anything you can do in that world is your right.
Now add moral peers. Nothing of the new options added by their presence is your right, those are privilege contingent upon their consent. Furthermore that which you cannot do without violence, threats of violence, or deception is lost.
Liberty is the most fit of all ethics because it is logical and universal (both together mean objective).I noticed that you don’t use the word libertarian or libertarianism. Do you not agree with them?
No I agree with the libertarian platform more than any other political policy sheet in the world.
I don't use the word "libertarian" because that is ceding ground to the collectivists who are trying to usurp the words "liberty" and "liberal". Those insidious glory-thieves want to think themselves the inheritors of the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th century (see oromagi constantly yammering about the tennis court oath). They are not.
When they talk about liberty they mean liberty from hunger, illness, poverty, and now one's own biology. In short they think liberty from the laws of physics is a right. All those things are of value, and we should certainly work to attain values, but they aren't rights.
They can't be rights because the only liberty that is ethically relevant, the liberty that those 18th and 19th century revolutions were about was liberty from the oppression of other moral actors.
If the baker has a right to liberty, you have no right to bread.
If you have a right to bread, the baker has no right to liberty.
You can't have it both ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Sounds like you feel comfortable calling people fakes despite their own self-identification.
- I'll call anybody by any pronoun they wish. I believe the police, reporters, friends, and family when they say that Aldrich is trolling you.
You seem incapable of accurately summarizing the statements of others.
Nevertheless, I think people should be at age of majority before having thier sex lives labeled by society.
Transgender translates to "sex life" to you? mmmm.
- You're right. Let's change that to "I think people should be at age of majority before having their gender identity critiqued by society."
- In my personal experience, personality doesn't really start to firm up until the age of 25.
Sounds a lot like "no true Scotsman" to me. The rules the left-tribe has laid out don't let randos question self-professed identity. A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman they say. A non-binary is anyone who identifies as non-binary.
You don't get to add age requirements.
- Another mentally ill, depection based Right-Wing hate group living to troll.
Are you saying they aren't homosexuals?
- No and also don't give a single fuck.
Then what is the "depection"? (Also note this typo would be used as proof of 73 IQ if it came from Trump)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I think you are fully capable of finding that definition yourself and correlating it with the definition. I'm not doing all your research for you.
I'm capable of googling yes, but my conclusion is that there is no useful definition of mental disorder or illness that is widely accepted. In fact the only official definitions exist to give the quacks which I previously mentioned plenty of room for arbitrage.
I responded to this thread by giving you a road map of how you could argue otherwise. It's not my research, my research was done long ago. It's your claim that contradicts my evaluation.
I might define a mental disorder as: A detrimental and persistent pattern of delusion in an awake and undrugged mindSo just to be clear, a mental disorder to you is:A harmful and continuous pattern of a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite the incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, in a wake and undrugged mind.
Let me be crystal clear: That is not what a mental disorder is to me, that is a definition I would advance as the nearest useful and objectively evaluable definition which behaves most like how the general population of English speakers would use the word.
Since I know the public conception is vague and the academic definition is unbounded I wouldn't use the word "mental disorder" just hoping to be understood. Some numbskull would come along and say "well that's not in the DSM" or "this is in the DSM", I have no interest in participating in a system of definitions that route back to the arbitrary assertions of supposed authorities.
I have no interest for the same reason I don't argue with 40k players about whether space marines are really always males: The universe they made up is an invention, which means it may contain contradictions, and it flows from the assertions of a few people who may introduce contradictions.
If you want to use that definition, then for the purposes of this discussion we could use logic to see if transgenderism fits the definition.
1.) the undrugged mind assumes the premise that someone who is mentally ill is immediately not mentally ill if they are drugged. But you fail to assess the fact that the drugging may have been a cause of the mental illness.
By design, the general conception of mental disorder is something endemic to the mind; whereas the affects of drugs are considered an "outside poison". This is a practical distinction.
The solution to being drunk is clear, stop drinking. It requires no plumbing of the psychology. Now there is the idea of alcoholism as a mental disorder, but that is something that persists whether the person is sober or not. The sober alcoholic desires alcohol not because he is drunk.
The general conception is that the only way to treat a mental disorder is by some form of introspection or corrective drugs.
This would except most religions as most religions are not particularly detrimental, even when they are persistent and often delusional.Well, using your definition, religion is not mentally ill, because not all religions are harmful, and they don't believe something against incontrovertible odds.
Often they do. The majority of religions (most thankfully now relegated to a few nutjobs) assert the validity of prophetic divination by proscribed ritual. The inability of shamans to make meaningful predictions is and always was obvious, however people were socially pressured into not pointing it out.
A few people probably believed them, and that was delusional given how many failed or super-vague predictions had to be ignored beforehand. Still, it doesn't fall into the general conception of mental illness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Ever heard of Gays against Groomers?
- Another mentally ill, depection based Right-Wing hate group living to troll.
Are you saying they aren't homosexuals? Who gave you the authority to deny their existence (literally this time)?
Created:
*errata of my last post in this thread, I was a mod once; "I have never accepted or sought a position as mod" is technically false, I meant I never sought and besides the one mistake I never accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's tempting to agree with you, but there is history of free civilizations that still extinguished themselves.
It's a complicated system, there will be noise. However, without knowing what examples you're talking about I'd be willing to bet it wasn't the freedom that was the problem.
True freedom hasn't been tried anymore than true communism (or true religion etc.. etc...), you can't have a perfect ideal and almost always you aren't even really that close.
My impression of history is actually a lot like Adolf Hitler's if you just replace "aryan blood" with "liberty".
Most of the time is spent with people grinding along the smooth worn track of their ancestors, which can include cycles of conquest and subservience without technological or economic advancement.
Then events come together in just the right way that there is a "new birth of freedom", something magnificent arises. Tiny populations with tiny resources loom large like titans over the world (Like Athens, Rome, and a hundred other forgotten examples).
Then, partly because they never knew where the greatness came from, and partly because of the parasite that always arrive when prosperity or power abounds; they backtrack. Take a "new" direction that is simply disguised savagery.
The turn into slavers and hegemons, frauds and criminals. They write histories in which the aggression of a few men is given the spotlight when it was the spirit of free people that gave the conquerors anything to work with.
Continuing the comparison with nazi ideology replace "international jewish conspiracy" with "collectivism".
Always the end of civilization is collectivist and almost always characterized by a society being held together by fear alone.
A more recent example is the British Empire, few have controlled more; but where did the trade stop and the empire begin? The people who created the engine were people who cared about ideas. People who held "Wealth of Nations" and the works of John Locke dear.
Eclipsed by a colony unwilling to let those ideas fade even as the east India company became a hybrid between a government and an enormous drug cartel. By the time a civilization is singing its own praise for the violence it commits and the wealth it extorts it is already on the decline. It may appear to thrive and rise for a few more generations by consuming and wasting the wealth of its victims but in the end it dies; and always when it dies they sit in their monumental government buildings asking "why, are we not as great as our fathers?".
Incorrect theory predictably leads to failure. Those who see history as "guns, germs, and steel" still have the wrong theory and will lead only back to another collapse much as they are now: "Wars for oil".
TL;DR: I suspect you are confusing cause and effect. Liberty and virtue set the feast, tyrants and parasites use the fallacy of collectivism to consume and destroy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Not something I would think would arise in this particular thread, but there it is…
Philosophy is the basics of abstract understanding. A subset of this phenomenon is that all "whys" in politics or drama eventually lead to ethics.
The saddest things I ever hear are people saying "morality has nothing to do with it" or mocking philosophy (these people are usually ex-religious and conflate morality with religion). They are (to use buddhist imagery) leaves who have forgotten where their water comes from. If they had no roots, they would die; they are simply so ignorant they don't even know they have roots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
1.) ChatGPT can be crushed by Sarah Conor any day now thank you.
2.) "a moral system that promotes cooperation and social cohesion is more likely to be adaptive and persist over time" = liberty, there is a local peak of cooperation when the culture is monolithic and strictly enforced by taboo and violence but that is not the global maximum. This is obvious in review of history. Isolated Japan was not invincible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee - Transgender shooter.
- Aiden Hale only started changing pronouns a few months ago after seeking therapy in the wake of the death of his best friend. We don't know if Hale had started any kind of therapeutic regime, although there's a strong correlation between hormone therapies and suicide.
The LGBTQ nightclub shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado - Non-binary shooter
- Flat-out opposite of the truth. Aldrich identified as a straight, gay-hating Conservative Republican who was known for using rainbow flags for target practice. His friends and family state that he consistently used he/him pronouns and only claimed non-binary pronoun usage after the shooting. That is- this is just another Republican trolling the trans community and anybody buying Aldrich's bullshit is perpetuating that troll in the face of the dead.
The STEM school shooting in Denver, Colorado - Transgender shooter.
- Alec McKinney was 16 yrs old at the time of the shooting, was supposed to be taking medicine for schizophrenia but had not done so for months and reports that inner voices were compelling him and had snorted a considerable amount of cocaine prior to the shooting. Nevertheless, I think people should be at age of majority before having thier sex lives labeled by society.
The pharmaceuticals distribution center shooting in Aberdeen, Maryland - Transgender shooter.And more cases like this one.
- Snochia identified to friends as a trans man but still used she/her pronouns. She started hormone therapy a year before the shooting.
So let's toss out Aldrich as a troll and McKinney as a schizophrenic, drug addicted minor. That leaves two transman shooters since 2018, both likely taking a considerable amount of testosterone, a drug known to cause violent mood swings. Many studies have found a direct correlation between violence and testosterone levels.
Sounds like you feel comfortable calling people fakes despite their own self-identification.
Nevertheless, I think people should be at age of majority before having thier sex lives labeled by society.
Transgender translates to "sex life" to you? mmmm.
It does, actually, if the mental illness was caused by drugs rather than transgenderism.
Actually a relevant point. Psychoactive drugs and have also been a pattern in school shootings before it was cool to deny your own gender. Testosterone is well known to cause aggression when out of balance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only morality that is truly objective is one that based on evolutionary fitness. All other forms of morality are doomed for extinction.
The nazis said something similar, but they should have read "The Selfish Gene" (obviously not yet written), because clearly their notion of fitness wasn't really correct in the final analysis. It, in fact; got them killed.
Worldviews, that is packaged systems of philosophy, religion, or culture; are a bit like genes. They reproduce, the compete for limited resources (people's minds), and sometimes they go extinct.
I submit that evolutionary fitness for a sapient species does not determine the correct worldview, the dominant worldview determines evolutionary fitness.
We are no longer slaves to evolution. We protect the weak, we use genius to expand the availability of resources faster than our population, and soon we will be able to directly engineer our own genes.
The era of natural selection is over. Now is the era of intelligent selection. What we choose to value matters more than accidents of genetics.
What is doomed are systems of value that require conflict and destruction. Fallacy begets further fallacy and errors. How long will it take to find equilibrium? No idea, but equilibrium, or peace, will be found in the system of values and code of behavior with no contradictions.
Like all the equations agreeing at once Liberty minimizes conflict not because it was designed to, but because conflict comes from contradictions in values. If the only permissible values and behaviors comply with liberty their holders are by definition compatible.
Liberty is the most fit of all ethics because it is logical and universal (both together mean objective).
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I appreciate you helping fight for this sort of liberty on the site ADOL. Hopefully you can remain active enough to take over the presidency when my term ends
I respect your drive to improve the quality of the dialog on this site, but I have never accepted or sought a position as mod or a president or what not because I certainly cannot guarantee focus or interest.
I recently ghosted for six months, not just here but all forums. I have always lived in cycles of obsession and rest. When I disengage from controversy I can't even summon the will to look up credentials for a forum. Usually another obsession has taken me, like building something.
I think a lot of people are like this. You see them come, become very active for a few months, then gone again.
and can feel safe inviting your friends with similar interests to join this site.
You could mean various things by "similar interests", but I'm afraid if you meant "interest in debate as a necessary and heroic social search for truth", I don't have many. Ok I had like three and they, like myself; often have better obsessions to follow. I couldn't contact them if I wanted.
I think you've got an uphill battle. I don't think people are getting stupider overall, but they're definitely becoming philosophical toddlers at higher percentages. My poor nephew's mind was nearly melted by the youtube algorithm.
They're not here (or other debate sites) because they're firmly lodged in their echo chambers. Even if you could fish them out, they would just flame each other.
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
Incorrect. Theres a misconception between trust and hope
Fine, you have no choice but to hope they won't twist the rules or apply them unequally.
The part you quoted is indeed vague, but so was the previous CoC. This has less basis that can be used to arbitrarily justify a ban.What do you mean by "this"? The under-development possible MEEP or the current one?If anything, the current CoC is better. I won't get called out for 'hurting someones feelings'. Could you imagine the amount of debaters who could possibly get affected? Thus, this one feels more vague depending on what parts you pull out.
The term "harassment" appears in both. That's the closest I can find to "hurting feelings".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
That was the union claim, it was not the legal truth.So we disagree about that.
Well you can make a thread about it. The fact remains that Lincoln violated the constitution by far exceeding the authority of the executive branch.
Objective morality should be followed, laws should reflect objective morality, and when they do they deserve to be followed.I also disagree that there is such a thing as objective morality.
Under a certain definition of morality I can there is such a thing, yet even if I couldn't that wouldn't mean laws are sacred; it would make them even more hollow and meaningless than I claim they are.
If there is no morality, what is law but the game theory that allows us to live together, deserving no respect the moment the violence of the government can be escaped by concealment or first-strike?
Morality evolves and varies from society to society.
So did creation myths about the moon, but no matter how many stories there are or how they evolved; turns out the moon formed by gravity from the matter of a stellar nursery. Maybe it was part of the Earth for a while, but objectively there is only one correct story.
Humans are fallible. No human belief was, is, or ever will be a deductive means of determining the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok, fine. I will provide you another definition so that you can understand.Mental Illness: "A condition which causes serious disorder in a person's behavior or thinking."
Shifts all the burden of filtering to "disorder" as "behavior or thinking" includes just about everything.
So what's a disorder?
Comparison:You wouldn't tell a schizophrenic person," The voices in your head are real, if you believe it's real." No, you would put a schizophrenic person through therapy, to explain to them that the voice in their head is not real, and that they need to come back to reality. You are not affirming what they believe to be real, because if you did, that would cause them a lot of pain a distress, as well as others.In the same way, you wouldn't tell a transgender person." You are actually a woman, if you believe you, are a woman." It's the same concept.
Reinforcing delusion is what your example is, and that is indeed almost always a bad idea.
Delusion is precisely defined, unlike mental illness or disorder. By talking about "reality" you invoke delusion vs non-delusion.
A delusion is an egregiously or readily demonstrable falsehood maintained or generated by the ego (and not misleading sensory perceptions).
Men are not women, female is not male, medical science is incapable of changing sex and sex was a synonym for gender until activists tried to change it. All this can be demonstrated readily.
I might define a mental disorder as: A detrimental and persistent pattern of delusion in an awake and undrugged mind
This would except most religions as most religions are not particularly detrimental, even when they are persistent and often delusional.
It would except brain farts or fads because they are not persistent.
It would except alcohol and coffee because they are drugs.
It would also except laziness for although that is detrimental and persistent, it is not a pattern of delusion.
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
As for more access for moderators, I don't know. I can't say I trust any of the moderators, i've talked little with only one moderator. It's not that they are or aren't doing a good job or aren't worth trusting, but how would I know? Further down the line, I will. But as of right now, like said, I don't know.
As some people are learning in the real world the hard way, there is no set of rules that can't be warped by a sufficiently dishonest judge (or mod). You have no choice but to trust them regardless, the reason to put the rules in precise language is so abuse is obvious and demonstrable.
The part you quoted is indeed vague, but so was the previous CoC. This has less basis that can be used to arbitrarily justify a ban.
Created: