Total posts: 4,833
-->
@oromagi
ADOL: In that case what are your rational grounds in failing to recognize the CHAZ as a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?oromagi: Please show some evidence for your claim that I failed to recognize CHAZ as "a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?"
Easily: If you had recognized as such you would recognize that AOC and Maxine waters were traitors to the constitution on Jan 6 2021. Consequently you would know that on Jan 6 the proceedings occurring within the capitol building were in violation of the constitution (for traitors may not serve in congress and yet they were participating).
Thus an army formed to prevent the proceedings (even if that was true) would not be an army necessarily meant to detach a portion of the territory claimed by the USA from the constitution. Indeed if the goal was to prevent the pretenders from carrying on pretending that would be the reattachment of territory of the USA to the constitution of the USA.
You may have noticed if you read history or even a good novel that who is the traitor and who is the usurper is a codependent state. If the king is false, the plot is not treasonous.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Unfortunately you have no rational grounds on which to do so. The army, pathetic as it was, and the intent to separate from the US Constitution are well documented facts.
In that case what are your rational grounds in failing to recognize the CHAZ as a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
@oromagi
oromagi, I didn't think I'd see even more damning evidence that you haven't a clue what american traditions meant what or how to distinguish the valuable from the valueless, but I was wrong:
oromagi: Taking the fifth means that I refuse to answer on the grounds that any answer is likely to reveal a crime which the government many not compel under the 5A.
Someone who takes pleading the 5th as an admission of guilt is exactly the sort of person I imagine is running DOJ meetings these days.
oromagi: MIchael Flynn was and remains a Russian spy in the most traditional sense:
I don't trust your sources and I don't trust you. The presumption of innocence and the implications thereof including the right to remain silent is one of the most flawless principles of the American legal tradition.
Lemming: I'm not fond of plea deals,And often our justice system seems a strange, conviction vs acquittal, based upon lawyer strength,Rather than truth and justice.
Nor am I. I was brought up being nose-blind to the flaws in the system like most are, but I have now come to believe that "prosecutorial discretion" (even when it isn't a prosecutor exercising it) is the heart of corruption and the root a many of the problems from county to federal and everything in between.
In fact simply learning US history and making comparison without having them spoon-fed will show you it isn't the first time it identified as a problem. There was an enormous problem with certain people being excluded from the protection of the law either explicitly in the law or by the discretion of officers of the law, state, and court. There was an amendment written and ratified to fix this problem:
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If I was a supreme court justice I would interpret the 14th amendment as making a doctrine of discretion illegal and therefore all practices made possible by it, such as plea bargaining, illegal.
If there is a law it must be applied wherever possible. For instance those who write the laws must be subject to them, and that is not (justly) up to a cop or a prosecutor to decide based on their whim, political leanings, or corrupt motivations.
Discretion allows laws that are only enforced when someone is a nail that stands a little too proud. Bad laws (laws that punish victimless crimes) need to be felt by the general public so they can be repealed. Instead they are written, forgotten, and fester in a giant law volume until corruption finds need of it.
How quickly the speed limit would increase if it was 100% enforced.
A plea deal, no matter the nobility of the end goal, is simply legal blackmail. Either they did the crime or they didn't. If they didn't they're rights are being trampled on because the burden of being falsely prosecuted is so high (and unavenged even if acquitted or charges dropped). If they did the crime then a guilty person goes free, and probably learns the lesson of "have something the government wants if you are going to break the law" which actively promotes corruption.
Created:
The FBI is now known to frame political enemies. The rational and conscientious observer should therefore treat the FBI and all claims and actions they make as less trustworthy than the average stranger who is not known to frame political enemies.
Lied under oath? Like Flynn "lied"?
There is nothing short of independently sourced direct evidence that could cause me to give one single shit about anything that comes out of a DOJ 'investigation'. I would sooner trust the FSB. For example, a signed confession means nothing because you don't know what the victim was threatened with to get them to sign.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I see it, a pig would be aware of what was happening.But rape is an intellectual concept.Overthink as it were.
All concepts are intellectual, overthink? rather semantics. Sex is a thing, like eating is a thing, that we have defined but which would continue to exist and be perceivable by all manner of living things even if we had never written a dictionary.
Though I suppose that the extraction of nutrients from decaying matter is a viable option.
Total tangent but fruits are designed to be eaten without killing the originating organism. It would be analogous to milk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings: Animals cannot rationally consent to sex, so any sex with them is immoral as it is rape.
It is not necessarily rape because they can consent. Consent requires a will not abstract knowledge or the ability to infer from that knowledge, although many animals do possess primitive versions of these capacities.
zedvictor4:Does any other animal intellectually consent or not consent to sex?
Perhaps if that phrase could be defined in concrete terms we could explore it. What is intellectual consent vs any other kind of consent?
zedvictor4: Or do they just do it, because the are functionally compelled to do it?Would a pig being fucked by a human, actually consider that "rape" was taking place?
They (their lotus of will) can be known to not be compelled by some kind of automatic override when members of the species have been observed to consistently but not deterministically behave differently based on life experience.
An ant will follow a pheromone trail no matter how many times it leads into an ant trap. A pig will not mount a mating dummy if it electrically shocked them the first two times.
Pigs do possess a discernible will, that is they have definite decisions with learned patterns of behavior to achieve varied values. They know what they want, they know when they aren't getting it. Furthermore they are social, they can keep a long and complex tally of social relationships. As the pig has a character that can be learned to predict his or her decisions, the pig knows that others also have characters. If one person whips a pig and another feeds him, he will differentiate between them. Running from one, and pestering the other.
From all of this I can say that a pig would know they are being raped if they were being raped.
Waving one's hands at the eminently relatable as if a mystical grey fog was all that existed in the minds of others is itself lazy mysticism and I would directly compare it do the oriental exoticism, which at its height had human beings in Europe suggesting that the minds of East Asian humans were incomprehensible (and pity the fool who tries to understand that which they could not).
Let me make that point crystal clear: When humans will declare other humans invalid targets for empathy (labeling it 'projection'), we know that there is a temptation in humans to falsely complicate matters in an attempt to manufacture a sense of uniqueness.
In contrast to the wolf-crying consider the boring but straightforward analysis I use to respond to zed's last sentence:
zedvictor4: It's always interesting how we apply human conceptual standards to the behaviour of other animals.
Anthropomorphism applied to near relatives like mammals is usually the simplest explanation because many mechanisms and systems evolved before the last common ancestor, thus it tends to be the correct explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It is a bit strange but my definition of racism did not include or rely upon a definition of race. Rather the generic "genetic
lineage"
I believe in the existence of genetic
lineage, I don't believe there is any frequent gene in any human population that has such a profound effect that moral, social, or political questions could be answered regardless of the person's choices and culture.
An infrequent gene might be down sydrome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
So rational racism is okay, but not 'irrational racism?
The definition of racism I gave was:
It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage
Say if there was a truly isolated subspecies like some homo erectus thing that was the most human like thing imaginable but the most intelligent homo erectus was below the lower standard deviation of the IQ of homo sapiens.
Nothing in the universe prevents such a speciation event from occurring but it didn't, there is one human species and the genetic homogeneity is decreasing and has been for hundreds of thousands of years. The reality we face is extremely minor genetic factors and comparatively enormous cultural and personal factors. In that reality racism as Rand and I define it is never rational.
When the rule has exceptions it's not a rule, the rejection of racism is the demand to evaluate each person for what they are because the pre-judgements [see prejudice] are unreliable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Doesn't matter. The error of racism is fundamentally one of irrationality. People choose their own character and their skills and intelligence individually vary well beyond any slight genotype variation. It is thus always irrational to evaluate character or skill by the kind of vast genetic categories that are always advanced as potential races.
When a genotypic category has a rational use it always carries a context with it and that defines the qualifications that matter. So all albinos have a vulnerability to radiation. Sickle cell anemia is highly associated with people having a lot of melanin but the melanin isn't the defining characteristic. If you want to call people with a genetic disease a race why not but so long as you only treat the category with the rational implications thereof there is no error.
If you treat people with albinism like they shouldn't be employed in the sun without protective clothing that's discrimination based on genes but it's not irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Based on the presented scenario and my general knowledge of probability math. The point of the documentary was the claim of identifying 2000 mules under the constraints of visiting 10 drop boxes and non-profits, the graphics in the film imply this scenario occurred in a short period of time.So, I get to choose between your "general knowledge of probability math" and the AP's Professor of Computer Science and Engineering to evaluate whether it is beyond a reasonable belief that D'Souza is misinterpreting ordinary traffic.
You get to choose whatever you want, but if you choose to claim something was disproved when it wasn't I may choose to call it out.
By all accounts the 2020 election was the most transparent and thoroughly audited election in human history.
If that was the case and you still said this:
You and election fraudster D'Souza's only problem is that you must first demonstrate probable cause for such a search
Then we have never had a trustworthy election in human history.
What is your evidence that there weren't any cameras?
Dinesh said there wasn't.
I will not take your word for it.
Nor presumably anyone else's, nothing I can (practically) do about that. If you want to believe there were cameras and Dinesh is lying because the footage disproved the mule theory you go right ahead because I certainly don't have the time to prove you wrong... but you haven't proven there were cameras either and don't pretend otherwise.
Aren't we talking about mostly Republican districts here?No, and the more you keep confusing that the more your ignorance of how elections work grows apparent.I am asking you a direct question which you are deflecting.
"No" is an answer to your question, full context reproduced above.
Why are so unable to identify a specific case that can be fact checked?
So when I said: "For instance cheating in Philadelphia"
The "instance" was an indicator of a specific example, Philadelphia is not an abstraction Philadelphia is a city set upon the Delaware river in the state of Pennsylvania.
US citizens are not "elections."
They are when they are running elections. I seem to remember this clamor about tax returns and an orange man?
Just I as I can ask my broker for a ledger, I am able to go online and audit the progress of my ballot and request a copy of my vote for weeks after the election.
You are clueless as to the actual system. Are you even an American? Federal and almost all state votes are secret ballots. It would be a direct violation of hundreds of election laws if they could provide you a record of your voting choices.
If 7% of the election was fraudulent, then you should have little problem coming up with voters who's vote was misrepresented and yet there are none
Some such people were found, but there is no reason for the people whose names were used to acquire fraudulent ballots would be at all aware of the need to audit their ballot. If you're a cheater and you're looking for a ballot, you don't go after people who are likely to vote. Such people would discover the double ballot (presuming the election system was working, there are indications it wasn't).
Ballots are harvested from people not in their right mind, dead people, people who are entirely apolitical and would never even check, people who had sold their ballot (they definitely wouldn't report), people who had moved out of state, etc...
You didn't understand that republican districts can be disenfranchised by fraudulent votes in a democrat district, you didn't understand the ballot is secret, and now you don't understand the most plausible theory of fraud.
Three strikes and you're out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
it is beyond reasonable belief that....any significant proportion of the identified mules were accounted for by innocent functions.Based on what? You're still waiting on the data 18 months later. Have any mules been identified? Are any mules expected to be indentified?
Based on the presented scenario and my general knowledge of probability math. The point of the documentary was the claim of identifying 2000 mules under the constraints of visiting 10 drop boxes and non-profits, the graphics in the film imply this scenario occurred in a short period of time.
So the MAIN problem with 2020 election that there were not cameras on drop off box in spite of legal requirements?
The main problem is people saying "prove it was fraudulent" with a smug grin when that is not where the burden of proof should be in this scenario. This is a matter of delegated trust at the root of our civilization and the responsibility for transparency and auditability is on the people who are given trust not the people who are suspicious of them.
"Woopies there weren't any cameras" is a microcosm of the general offense. It's not good enough to hope there wasn't cheating, it needs to be ruled out. If it is not ruled out any claims of democracy and thus the social contract binding anyone are especially absurd.
Putting forward election officials hardly discredits the method, they are acting as ballot mules; simply authorized ones.I see. So the election officials were all in on it?
Once again you say something that I believe demonstrates your disingenuity on this subject.
Aren't we talking about mostly Republican districts here
No, and the more you keep confusing that the more your ignorance of how elections work grows apparent.
It should be a simple matter to check records to see which phones could match the logs of election officials. I say "should" because that is exactly the kind of data that no one is allowed to ask for without being charged with insurrection these days.It's allowed. You and election fraudster D'Souza's only problem is that you must first demonstrate probable cause for such a search and 18 months after the election nobody claiming fraud has managed to meet that low standard
Unacceptable standard, if a broker takes your money to invest you don't need probable cause of fraud to demand a ledger of what he did with your money, not keeping a ledger is itself probable cause. The transparency/security/auditability is owed, elections are not a person whose breach of privacy requires due process under the 4th amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
and how many would then loiter within 10 feet of that drop box at 3am and then continue to do the same thing at nine other drop boxes in the same trip?I don't know, my example is hypothetical while yours claims to be real.
Your hypothetical was missing conditions.
In my hypothetical, I suppose any Amazon driver loading up the Amazon lockers might qualify and, of course, election officials collecting ballots might easukt qualify.
Amazon drivers would go to amazon warehouses, it is beyond reasonable belief that every relevant box is next to an amazon drop-off, and that any significant proportion of the identified mules were accounted for by innocent functions. Furthermore if the election laws were not broken quite so thoroughly there would be cameras on every drop-off box so that interactions with the box could be confirmed which as I have stated before is the main issue.
Putting forward election officials hardly discredits the method, they are acting as ballot mules; simply authorized ones. It should be a simple matter to check records to see which phones could match the logs of election officials. I say "should" because that is exactly the kind of data that no one is allowed to ask for without being charged with insurrection these days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I saw the film. It all depends on if the data is real.No. We've already established that the methodology is pure dumbshit, so the data is irrelevant.
You have not.
My dropbox, for example, is located at the entrance to a local museum. It stands next to a bank of mailboxes, fed ex & UPS dropoff boxes, and a bank of Amazon pick up boxes. The museum is the main attraction but that museum sits on a hill that offers one of the famous views of the city. I go there most weekends to walk my dog. It is a popular place for tourists to take pictures or meet, etc. I would estimate that on a average day, between one and two thousand people pass within 10 feet of that dropbox location, and far more when the dropbox is there.
and how many would then loiter within 10 feet of that drop box at 3am and then continue to do the same thing at nine other drop boxes in the same trip?
probabilities are multiplicative
Now, I live in a high density hospital district. A quick google search show some 120 non-profits have offices on my daily routes through that neighborhood.
You're assuming the data doesn't have the temporal resolution to distinguish between driving past a location and stopping there.
If Dinesh D'Souza had been digitally creeping on me and my neighbors, he would easily have found evidence of 200-300 mules working my ballot box alone, in spite of the neighborhood being so overwhelmingly Democrat that nobody would ever bother.
That is begging the question. The claim that the district is so overwhelmingly democrat that no one would even bother is substantiated by the ballot count. If there were 200-300 mules however that ballot count would not reflect reality.
There is indeed no point trying to cheat in an election that is a forgone conclusion, but the relevant elections were state or nation wide. Which means cheating in a district that is heavily democrat has just as much effect on the outcome as cheating in a district that is heavily republican. For instance cheating in Philadelphia cancels the votes of people in PA outside Philadelphia even if there wasn't a single red voter in Philadelphia.
Using D'Souza's methodology, I could easily draw a line between visits to ballot boxes and various evangelical Christian churches, dog tracks and slaughterhouses to attest that Trump voters were likewise stuffing the ballot box.
It would be interesting analysis. If the data is published you should try and post it here so it may be reproduced. Now that I think about it though if it was purchased data there may be contractual obligations preventing redistribution.
freepresser.com is website can post literally anything without fact checking or gatekeeping.
So that makes it no worse than self described fact checkers....
Let's be sure to dismiss your source as worse than mere gossip.
As I pointed out previously, dismissing sources/authorities is the inevitable outcome of a true disagreement because relating assertions is not an argument. Dismiss at will, but remember what you do and do not hold others to a different standard.
So, on April 12th, Catherine Engelbrecht said she would release the data after the movie was released. That was two weeks ago. Let's note that Engelbrecht has also refused to share her "data" with Republican Legislators in Wisconsin and Georgia.
Did you independently fact check that or are you just going off free presser after dismissing it? If she said that then freepresser was reliable in this instance wasn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I saw the film. It all depends on if the data is real. We'll see https://www.freepressers.com/articles/true-the-vote-going-public-with-all-2020-election-data
Plus, experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby.
This is the only relevant statement in that entire post, and it is facially self-defeating. A few meters in the context of temporal data is more than enough to render the intersection of ten boxes in a short period of time (such as a voting period) statistically impossible without intent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
@Double_R
this seems to place a monumental weight (the "value" of humanity itself) on the (rather elusive) pin-head of "free-will"Reason and choice have monumental weight. Whether it is truly unique to humanity or not is besides the point.[3RU7AL:] at what point did you reason-and-choose to avoid pain and discomfortat what point exactly did you reason-and-choose to enjoy your favorite food and drink
Avoiding pain and seeking pleasure is an old system solved many millions of years ago. The uniqueness of man and the proper focus of his conscious thought is not in his pain/pleasure or even in his suffering/satisfaction (the emotional evolution of pain/pleasure) but in his reason and choice of actions and values.
A bee can prefer sweet over biter. A dog can prefer happiness over suffering... but man can abstract values, choose amongst them with reason, and use reason and creativity to achieve them.
My favorite food was not chosen by an objective/rational process, but choosing my favorite food isn't really the problem facing us. Building societies and technology which give me a wide selection to choose my favorite food and to actually enjoy it at will is the problem. Our ancestors have done an awesome job tackling the problem with reason and choice.
Choice in values also effects satisfaction and suffering. We can think ourselves into misery or to enlightenment given the same environmental factors.
Pleasure and pain aren't irrelevant, but they aren't primary; acting like they are is throwing away 200 million years of progress. Not sure how this conversation got here but *shrug*.
[Athias:] Case in point: Let's for a moment consider that I described "voluntarism" as the principle in which man ought to act and organize without being subjected to or being the initiator of violence, aggression, coercion, and/or duress. If I were to include "shame" among this list of qualifiers, what then would my description of the principle suggest?
It would suggest that coercion (the rest were synonymous in context) is not the only thing that threatens the value the principle is meant to achieve for shame also threatens it.
[Athias:] Why would the principle be wider than "rejection of violence, fines, or threats thereof"?
because that's what the value implies.
Hardly, it was clearly an example of other principles which are do not strictly exist along the lines of objective social rights.[Athias:] So if something as presumably "shameful" as "racist speech" should not be precluded by the principle of free speech, then I ask once again, why is "shame" included in free speech's purview?
because, man being a rational animal (remember what I said), shaming him for his beliefs is not the appropriate way to deal with beliefs even if they are shameful according to the values and inferences of others. Reasoning (debate) is the proper response because shaming has no bias towards truth while debate does.
Perhaps a man doesn't respond to reason but only to shame, then perhaps shame should be resorted to, but that isn't a flaw in the principle but the man. If the man doesn't respond to shame and violates the rights of others then he must be attacked, but that does not mean non-aggression is a flawed principle.
To be clear there isn't exactly a "right to free speech", there is a right to not be attacked for speech.[Double_R:] This conversion is not about physical retaliation, so “attacked” in this sense is just an overhyped word being used to mean “criticized”.
When I say "attacked" I mean physical attack, or threats of physical attack, or malicious deception. If you don't believe that's relevant to this conversation then you don't believe the objective "right to free speech" is relevant, the principle of free speech I gave was not a definition of a right. It was an algorithm to achieve a value (as all principles are). Depending on if the value is objective and universal that principle could be fully expressed by a right but it need not be, nor does a principle need to relate to a right to have validity.
[Double_R:] Therefore your statement is that in principal we have a right to not be criticized for our speech. But the right to criticize someone else is literally what free speech means, so this statement is self refuting.
At no time did I state that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Morality is the foundation of law, so the morality of an action is relevant on what the law should be.the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.-John Stuart Mill
You quote it, but I doubt you or anyone else here believes it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
There is a reason human civilization has thrived.
it certainly isn't delegation of critical thought to a small an unaccountable social elite...
there is a reason we put a man on the moon and satellites in space.
The reason is reason.
No one person figured out everything needed to accomplish this.
....and no one person was trusted beyond what he could prove if called upon to do so. The refusal or failure to do so would be a red flag of the greatest dimensions, and that is because people who build (working) rockets aren't irrational sheep and don't believe in fairy-tales.
The irony here is that you think you are somehow different - like you're thinking for yourself while the rest of us mindless bots just follow others.
Well the first order evidence of that proposition would be fact that I have to explain that pointing to other people's assertions isn't an argument. If "you" were all thinking for yourselves to the same degree that I am, you would know that already; it would be taken for granted.
The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of information you consider knowledge you, just like the rest of us, learned from someone else. How do you know George Washington was a real person? Were you there? No, you were told he was. How do you know Antarctica exists? Have you ever been there? No, you were told it exists, and shown images you were told was Antarctica.The only difference between us is in who we decide to trust with the information we consider to be factual and more importantly, how we go about determining who to trust. That's where the "I don't trust experts" idea goes off the rails. There is nothing wrong with skepticism, but that is something entirely different.
Did I say "I don't trust experts"? If I did that was an error. Of course I trust information I've been given when there has never been any serious doubts raised against it and it doesn't appear to create contradictions with established mechanics of reality.
but if I said "I trust X and therefore I'm right", that would be fallacy. If I have no reason to believe Antarctica exists besides that I heard it does then I've no business trying to argue it exists.
Where arguments are known no trust is necessary. If I knew all the arguments I would be an expert. If I run out of arguments I've run out of expertise and I must hold my assertive tongue. This is true for everyone else, only they don't always know it.
An expert in a debate will have the best arguments and if he does not he is not the most expert after-all. Similarly if someone you claim is not expert has better arguments than someone you claim is expert your opinion on expertise counts for nothing. The concept of expertise simply has no useful place in debate.
If you do not immediately see this explain the means to differentiate between an appeal to people and appeal to authority.I don't know what "appeal to people means".
There are appeals to authority, and then there is the appeal to authority fallacy, which I already explained is when you appeal to someone who is not an authority. The difference between these two is the process by which we tell who is an authority.
and despite what your preferred list of fallacies might tell you, I am saying that all appeals to authority are fallacies because the only irrefutable difference between an authority and a false authority is sound/strong argument on the subject itself; hence the appeal in of itself never lends support, hence it is a fallacy.
The first is about credentials, including experience and proven results. If someone has a track record of accomplishing the desired result, they are likely to continue getting said results. That's basic inference.
Hippocrates could reliably perform surgeries that the average person even today would likely botch, yet he was wrong about the four humors. Deductive inference failed.
And yes, there will always be some doctor or some scientist out there who will tell you what you want to hear, that’s why we look to the bulk of expertise in order to determine what the authority is there.
As I implied before, a modified ad populum. The majority isn't always wrong, often it is right; but as a deductive argument it is fallacy because sometimes the oddball is Galileo.
To do otherwise is claim humanity itself is not only incapable of understanding a particular field, but also that we are not smart enough to know we don’t understand it. That takes quite an argument to justify.
There are no such implications from my statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
[Athias:] The suggestion that one's freedom of speech is at all qualified by "shame." Why would "shame" be a factor?Your mention of shame in your description of the principle suggests a qualification--i.e. the extension of the principle necessitates the modification "shame" provides (otherwise, there'd be no need to mention it at all.)
Using a list of categories for illustrative purposes is a common rhetorical device, you read assumptions into it in this case.
"Man, being a rational animal, should not be punished or shamed for
expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private. This
is his better nature."
=
"Man, being a rational animal, should not be discouraged from expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private. This
is his better nature."
A more informal definition of punishment might include shaming, but I included the word "shaming" to emphasize that the principle is wider than a rejection of violence, fines, or threats thereof.
[Athias:] And replied to the effect that the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) are "claimed" to be
If you aren't claiming they are what does it matter? It looks like you led my down a dead end for no particular reason. Is there in fact any cheese in this shop at all?
[Athias:] So it is your position that "free speech" should be preclude "racist" speech per Ayn Rand's description?
Hardly, it was clearly an example of other principles which are do not strictly exist along the lines of objective social rights.
is defending your own family "irrational" ?Not in most cases.[3RU7AL:] isn't tribalism (aka "rooting for the home team") a natural extension of "protecting your own family" ?
Natural selection might think so, but the rational mind knows better in many circumstances and in the circumstances where protecting your family is rational we tend not to call it tribalism.
Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.[3RU7AL:] wowthis seems to place a monumental weight (the "value" of humanity itself) on the (rather elusive) pin-head of "free-will"
Reason and choice have monumental weight. Whether it is truly unique to humanity or not is besides the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Something significant has been developing, power has been centralized which means its winner takes all on all issues. When enough people perceive the social contract to be breached there will be civil war.
Just because people have tolerated differing opinions on an issue before does not mean they will after all benefit of doubt dries up. Remember the USA formed over issues such as taxes < 10% of GDP. It's not just the harm, it's how the people who did it respond to your complaints. If they laugh in your face and say you don't matter shit gets dangerous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
[3RU7AL:] Racism is irrationalis defending your own family "irrational" ?
Not in most cases.
[Athias:] I'm not suggesting that you implicated it; you outright stated it:Of the principle of free speech?:Man, being a rational animal, should not be punished or shamed for expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private. This is his better nature.
That is what I stated. It does not rely on non-shaming being a right and I do not understand why you think the non-rightness of non-shaming means a principle can't preclude shaming.
The amendments aren't a complete list of everything the government shouldn't be attacking people for.The first 10 are claimed to be such a list (i.e. "Bill of Rights.")
Even if it were written that it was a complete list, that would not prove it was a complete list. It is not written, and in fact another section of the constitution specifically disclaims the possibility.
Racism is irrational, the genetic variations in behavior are eclipsed many times by the volitional variations.Racism is unfair, everyone has some genetic variation from their neighbors and no one would want to feel unwelcome on account of themRacism is against the spirit of liberty because even though privileges are not rights, a liberal mindset is gratified when people may pursue their own values and does not withhold privileges for insignificant or petty reasons.First, define racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Shame is a powerful factor in controlling others short of violence or deception. I am not saying a person has a right to never be shamed, but the principle of free speech is wider than strict rights just as the golden rule is wider than strict moral liability.If you're in fact suggesting that a person does not have the right to never be shamed, then why would shame play any role in the examination of the principle?
I don't see the implication. Whether non-shame is a right or not has nothing to do with it. Shame is a means short of violence to discourage something, but if that thing is valuable (or neutral) it should not be discouraged.
If the right to Free Speech is based on the principle of free speech, then "shame" is not a measure. Because, as previously mentioned, one doesn't have the right to not be "shamed."
To be clear there isn't exactly a "right to free speech", there is a right to not be attacked for speech. Just as there isn't a right to life, there is right not to be murdered.
The "right to free speech"="right to not be attacked for speech" was specifically recognized because free speech was correctly identified as being valuable to society. The amendments aren't a complete list of everything the government shouldn't be attacking people for.
To use your example, shame can effectively be used to make a new arrival feel so unwelcome on account of their skin that they cannot stand to stay. They didn't have a right to feel welcome, but it would have been better if they were treated without prejudice. There is a spirit of fairness, a spirit of rationality, a spirit of liberty that (as a christian might say) should be written on the heart not on stone.Then "shame" provides a unsubstantiated caveat to the principle. How would it be "unfair," or "irrational," or "lacking liberty" in spirit?
I can only assume you're asking the question about the example.
Racism is irrational, the genetic variations in behavior are eclipsed many times by the volitional variations.
Racism is unfair, everyone has some genetic variation from their neighbors and no one would want to feel unwelcome on account of them
Racism is against the spirit of liberty because even though privileges are not rights, a liberal mindset is gratified when people may pursue their own values and does not withhold privileges for insignificant or petty reasons.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"experts" I dismiss as I dismiss all appeals to authority.I mean no offense by saying this, but this is why Trump supporters are widely considered to be idiots.
Regardless of offense: anyone who permanently surrenders the responsibility of discerning truth to others is worse than an idiot. Idiots are often confident in their own foolishness, which makes them wrong but not always easy to manipulate.
The problem with "experts", much like religions, is there is so many (if you define them as people who will tell you what to think with confidence); and if you won't think for yourself you can't differentiate between them. If you can differentiate between them it is only to the degree that you have invested the time to gain some expertise of your own.
If you have already dismissed yourself as incapable of evaluating arguments then it is the greatest temptation to simply choose experts based on whether their message is emotionally pleasant to accept.
For those reasons, and because of the almost instantaneously collapse to rejecting unwanted "experts" appeals to authority have no place in debate.
Observe:
Trump is an expert on election fraud claims, the end.
Trust the experts Double_R.
If you need an attorney, you hire someone who passed the bar exam.
You don't have much choice. You also need a priest if you want to get forgiven.... according to priests.
If you need surgery, you go to someone with a doctorate.
You go to someone who has studied a lot and practiced a lot. A doctorate is only a hopeful proxy for that.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you either cherry pick or appeal to someone who is not an authority, as in someone who does not have expertise.
I know that is the standard claim in debate handbooks, but it's a provable error; the only way to prove expertise is to provide sound/strong argumentation thus even in the best case an appeal to authority is a pointless layer of indirection.
If you do not immediately see this explain the means to differentiate between an appeal to people and appeal to authority.
All of this is common sense. It'll never cease to amaze me how people are willing to abandon that in order to hold onto their own political ideology.
It indicative of a narrow field of vision. A man can only have the luxury of trusting in common sense, the wisdom of crowds and the "experts" of crowds when he considers only his own time and community.
If he searches for philosophy that functions just as well in the shadow of an Aztec pyramid he must do better than referring to others. He must look at the propositions themselves and draw inferences using logic not trust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is entirely about the government restricting the rights of the citizenry. There is nothing about this which suggests that Twitter shouldn't be banning people it takes issues with
.... and yet it doesn't say "government" it says "congress" now if the principle was entirely contained and described by the 1st amendment as opposed to being a general American value... why do almost all the state constitutions have their own versions for their own laws?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm not forcing anyone to have an abortion. I'm not forcing anyone to not have an abortion.
But you are forcing them to refrain from other things, therefore you have no problem with the concept of using force to prevent people from doing things with their body. So don't act like that's where your disagreement with pro-lifers (or whatever you want to call them) is.
You disagree there is a victim, which is a very different thing from them not caring about bodily autonomy. Don't strawman, you'll never win a debate OR convince anyone that way ( actually you might convince some people, but you shouldn't do it that way).
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
But you keep making sure everybody has to live to your moral standard because you get to decide what everybody else gets to do with their f****** body and their f****** life
You are just as comfortable as they are in enforcing your moral standards on other people's bodies when you think there is a victim. You have no high ground here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It does not, it is mentioned in the constitution. It predated the constitution and an equivalent principle and phrase existed before the English language existed. I recommend you listen to lectures concerning Athens during the greek golden age. It is perhaps the most important history to know.I'm taking about the principal which has stood as the backbone of American life for over 200 years, which is where the term gets it's strength from. There is a reason "free speech" is such a powerful issue to Americans, and it's not because of the concept you are espousing.
It is the concept I'm describing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Well my favourite philosopher has a definition of sorts, not concise but complete:
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.
Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
A racist is someone who believes in racism. Actions are not required but they can be used to infer the belief. Actions are racist when the thought process which motivated them is significantly influenced by racism.
Note the difference here between morality and racism. Morality is a property of the act, people are only moral or immoral insofar as they tend to act moral or immoral. Racism is a belief and thus a property of the mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
it is better to debate him than threaten or ostracize him.[Athias:] sure, as a general rule, yesDaryl Davis is a great example for us allhowever, there are many technically "unreasonable" individuals
There are indeed, and there always have been, and probably always will be... but if they are unreasonable it will only be truly proven by their speech. If the public is so irrational that they cannot discern irrationality from rationality (or so immoral that they don't care) then censorship will hardly improve them. A broken engine is still broken even if you refuse to put fuel in it. Not a perfect analogy because if there is open debate there is some potential reward for using reason over violence and deception. It would be as if an engine repairs itself sometimes.
What issue do you have?[Athias:] The suggestion that one's freedom of speech is at all qualified by "shame." Why would "shame" be a factor?
Shame is a powerful factor in controlling others short of violence or deception. I am not saying a person has a right to never be shamed, but the principle of free speech is wider than strict rights just as the golden rule is wider than strict moral liability. For people who believes in the principle it is because they think it makes things better, not merely because someone with a gun is telling them they have to.
To use your example, shame can effectively be used to make a new arrival feel so unwelcome on account of their skin that they cannot stand to stay. They didn't have a right to feel welcome, but it would have been better if they were treated without prejudice. There is a spirit of fairness, a spirit of rationality, a spirit of liberty that (as a christian might say) should be written on the heart not on stone.
Origin of punishment would be anyone that threatens to punish by violation of rights or revocation of privileges. Who could realistically make such threats changes from town to town not to mention hundreds of years.[Athias:] Government?
...clearly but not exclusively
Origin of punishment would be anyone that threatens to punish by violation of rights or revocation of privileges.[3RU7AL:] so, basically a parent and or a neighborhood bully
Well a repressive parent yes, and a neighborhood bully who bullies to keep you from talking.
Those are excellent examples of non-government violations of free speech, and the harm (or rather the lack of potential good) that results is palpable.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
[oromagi:] You literally just said "I don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome." That is a fair description of democracy. You own words have established that you are against democracy whatever claims you fail to argue.[ADOL:] You aren't even aware that ad populum is a fallacy, and an easy one to prove at that.[oromagi:] Dismissing democracy as a logical fallacy. eeek.
Democracy is a form of government. Ad populum is a fallacious argument. If a democracy claimed to be determining infallible truth with its votes it would be committing a fallacy. If it only claims to be choosing its laws and leaders by a vote there is no fallacy.
This is beyond obvious, so obvious that I have just concluded you are not engaging honestly.
The positive claim you made does not interface with my original point. The USSR could produce a list of officials who signed off on Stalin's election as well.If the overwhelming majority of People's deputies claimed that Stalin lost while only a handful of Stalin's cronies cried victory, I would call that excellent evidence that Stalin probably lost the election.
Which means the other guy probably won, but the other guy was in fact Stalin... which implies you think Stalin actually won... which makes my point perfectly.
an enormous number of ballots were added without election judges,bullshit. It is tr....
Since I have determined you are not engaging honestly I'll need someone to second your objections before investing time in a response.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you argue against homosexuality between men because no one here ever brings up women it's because you think a man is acting less than a man...
This (and the rest behind the ...) seem to be a melting pot of ideas considered "right wing" by people who consider themselves "left wing" over the last 50 years. It does not seem to accurately describe any position posted in this thread.
---------------------------------------------
I'll be a broken record and say this:
The most frustrating and disturbing thing about the reactions in this thread and the general reaction of the public is to immediately start talking about the ethics of abortion. While I would be normally very approving of taking moral questions head on (because they do need to be solved) there seems to be no acknowledgement at all that this ruling does not take any stance on abortion besides the objectively true stance that the Constitution of the USA does not mention or imply any rights to abortion or right to not be aborted.
The court is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
I fully understand wanting some mythical supreme source of true justice to stomp over the legislatures, executives, and enforce a code of morality that I believe in. I've had many fantasies of such.... but in the real world even if that happened it would be civil war in three months, you can't manufacture moral consensus from on high.
The fact that this pro-life vs pro-choice thing has been going on for 50 years is proof positive of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
concerning Athens during the greek golden age.because language never evolves
The evolution of which is irrelevant to the point. The same concepts can be communicated in different languages. That is what "translation" refers to. One may as well claim that Pythagoras wasn't talking about triangles because he didn't call them "tri-angle" in a language that didn't exist.
should not be punished or shamed for expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private.okthis seems problematicfor examplewhat if someone hypothesizes that i should be kicked out of town because of my skin color ?
The belief of those who originated the principle was that in the grand scheme of things, that is on the average of human events, it is better to debate him than threaten or ostracize him. They believed that when people hear that you will not debate someone many will not assume it's because you're right, that threats of violence turn to violence, that violence turns into civil wars, and finally that civil wars destroy societies so that societies with more free speech will dominate the ones that do not.
That last point appears to be confirmed by many experiments.
[Athias:] I agree. I too have issues with ADoL's description of "free speech"--especially the part which mentions shame.
What issue do you have?
[Athias:] I also would like to see it delineated the "origin of punishment."
Origin of punishment would be anyone that threatens to punish by violation of rights or revocation of privileges. Who could realistically make such threats changes from town to town not to mention hundreds of years.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Problem is the even seeming balance of power, on this moral question,
The important ones always are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
[Double_R:] Yes, the principal is about stopping elected officials from using the power of their office to control what information the citizenry can use to evaluate themThat may be your principle but it is not the principle of free speech.what's the short version ?
Of the principle of free speech?:
Man, being a rational animal, should not be punished or shamed for expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private. This is his better nature.
There are incomplete legal implementations of the principle, but they are no more the heart of the matter than a law against murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That may be your principle but it is not the principle of free speech.The term "fredom of speech" comes from the constitution, not right wing talk radio.
It does not, it is mentioned in the constitution. It predated the constitution and an equivalent principle and phrase existed before the English language existed. I recommend you listen to lectures concerning Athens during the greek golden age. It is perhaps the most important history to know.
You are free to make up whatever principals you want, but you don't get to hijack a term which carries significant weight because of it's historical usage and act liked that weight also applies to your made up principal.
That would be dishonest if that is what was happening.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome.Not a fan of Democracy, got it.if you don't make that claim or don't believe that claim is required you are against democracy.You literally just said "I don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome." That is a fair description of democracy. You own words have established that you are against democracy whatever claims you fail to argue.
It's unfortunate that you believe you are qualified to debate. You aren't even aware that ad populum is a fallacy, and an easy one to prove at that.
If you wish to debate this a new thread can be made.You don't need my permission.
But I do need a motivation. It's a lot of work, while perhaps not entirely wasted I would not be able to stay interested if I expected you to dismiss the iceberg because you can only see the tip.
FIrst you say "oh I'lll make a claim" but then you don't.
I did, you complained it wasn't specific enough. Not the same thing as never making it.
When I cite Hitchen's Razor you say then recognize what the original [positive] claim was. I give you the positive claim and you chicken out.
The positive claim you made does not interface with my original point. The USSR could produce a list of officials who signed off on Stalin's election as well.
That is the claim you must overcome: that voters and election fifty State governments and the Dept of Justice and the majority of Congress and independent international observer all acknowledge that the 2020 Election was free and fair.
You stretch credulity on many of those claims, but I will not delve into it because it does not matter how many people believe X. Humans are fallible, sometimes more so in groups than alone.
If you do make that claim then you have the BoP for it.The overwhelming consensus of many experts and eyewitnesses satisfies most Burdens of Proof including free and fair election.
"experts" I dismiss as I dismiss all appeals to authority. Experts should provide good arguments if they are experts. If they can't or won't provide good arguments they aren't really experts. If you (or anyone else) agree with the expert but can't understand their arguments and use them, you shouldn't get into a debate about the subject expecting to rely on those arguments or the authority of the expert who formulated them.
Eye witnesses testimony is a form of evidence, but only the assertions of witnessed events. If a man sees the sun eclipsed that may be entirely true, but that doesn't mean his explanation that it is Fenrir eating the sun must be accepted.
The shocking conclusion I came to during the months of attempted audits was that your assumption about a great mass of eye witnesses is far from reliable. In the Georgia video for instance the so called fact checkers made a grand deal about how the bins were stored under the table in full view of everyone, conveniently remaining silent on the fact that an enormous number of ballots were added without election judges, and moreover those judges were just sitting in a corner of a room where they could not possibly have witnessed anything suspicious in the first place.
A conspiracy of 2-3 in the counting facility and 5-20 overall could produce a delta of thousands of fraudulent ballots. That is certainly not an intrinsic risk of paper ballots in the information age, the simplest explanation is that this vulnerability was intentionally made.
Hell, Pence of Trump/Pence risked his life to certify his own defeat. Now you must explain why you imagine you know so much better than all those tens of thousands of citizens doing their jobs and why you think they are all conspiring to fool you.
I think I know so much better than tens of thousands of people on a great number of issues. In general I am curious as to why they are wrong, but I do not need to find an answer. Why did millions of people convince themselves that the sun would not rise unless they cut someone's heart out? An irrational conclusion can have many causes, one does not need to know them all to know it is false.
In this case it's tens of thousands who disagree and tens of thousands who agree, I am certainly not alone in this though I remind you that logic does not care either way.
I can illustrate your misrepresentation using Pence of Trump/Pence. Pence choose to count the submission of electors signed by governers because he believed that was what the founders intended the vice president to do. He never said it was because he thought there was no chance the election was decided by fraud. In a similar vein I believe that the majority of judges and law enforcement choose to excuse themselves as quickly as possible from the question because they were afraid of what it would mean if they found in favor of fraud or even entertained the idea. As we can see with the kangaroo courts of DC and the Jan 6 committee being charged with sedition was a realistic fear.
If I have to explain why I "imagine" I know better than Pence, why don't you have to explain why you "imagine" you know better than Trump of Trump/Pence?
Did it even occur to you that the non-existent assertions of Pence were no more valuable than the very documented assertions of Trump?
Created:
Someone leaked it so that threats can be made to prevent the ruling from coming through, so it's not done yet.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome.
If you wish to debate this a new thread can be made. Also the intro of your challenge contains the very error in BoP which was my original point in this thread
"verified by the preponderance of official US election observers", rejected on that ground even if there was no voting.
Claim: The official count (popular and collegic) of the 2020 election could not have been incorrect to such a degree that the apparent outcome would have changed due to intentional fraud.
That's the claim of someone who asserts the US is a democracy, if you don't make that claim or don't believe that claim is required you are against democracy. If you do make that claim then you have the BoP for it. That's not BoP to find a group of people who agree with the outcome, that's BoP for the claim itself.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
No I am not being specific because there are too many examples to remember of the top of my head.Nobody asked you off the top of your head but one would think 20 minutes of googling would have given you some examples to argue.
Well 20 minutes of duck duck going will at least. Before I invest that time though I will have your assurances that you will not move goal posts or gish gallop.
i.e. remember the context of might point, I would be proving that the evidence that could be reasonably expected is present. If you're just going to go "well ok this is probably fraud, and that testimony was never disproved but you can't prove X number of votes for Y candidate were false."
I never said I could, I don't think anyone can because if anyone could that would mean the election was auditable and was audited which is exactly the scenario I am asserting is not the case.
If you want I will make a thread to present that evidence and the theories involved.
Hitchen's Razor states "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." The burden of proof lies with claimant. If the claimant is unwilling to to submit evidence for our consideration then the burden is not met and I need not argue further.
Then recognize what the original [positive] claim was: "A fair and free election occurred in 2020 [and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt]"
It's not censorship if the government isn't doing it.
I reject any definition of censorship which would cause that statement to be true.
When media separates truth from fiction that is called journalism.
lol, well I'll call it "journalism" when I pretend your statements don't exist.
So far, all you've given us is statements of faith.
I shall remember this phrase so I can use it every time you make an assertion or refer to pure assertion.
For the purposes of demonstrating that you can't "fact check" anything of relevance on demand (which should be obvious) take this testimony Michigan Election Fraud Hearing Testimony, 12/1/20 3 (bitchute.com)
- So this is a GOP poll watcher. Let's recall their behavior at the TCF center was quite unruly. Let's note that this woman is not under oath or in court. This a Republican testifying to other Republicans without cross-examination or any attempt to secure the poll worker's version of the story. Here is the testimony of a Dem poll watcher on the same day, which states that GOP poll watchers arrived with an agenda to disrupte and confuse. https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-i-was-detroit-poll-challenger-gop-came-make-havoc
This fails to disprove the testimony.
- This is the hearing where Giuliani's main witness famously showed up intoxicated.
I doubt that, and even if it was true it fails to disprove the testimony.
- Can we get the name of this witness? Why didn't she report this to law enforcement at the TCF on the day she witnessed it?
Do you doubt she has a name?
- For this witnesses' testimony to be true, multiple counting machines must have failed and multiple team of counters would have all had to decide the same way.
The fact that you believe that shows you do not know the mechanics involved. I did not know before 2020 either, but I researched because of the controversy and that is when I determined that the elections were trust based and not auditable.
- Many, many false claims about this particular test center have been factually disproved. I assume this is just another member of Giuliani's team hired to make shit up.
You assume do you? "So far, all you've given us is statements of faith."
Hold yourself to the evidentiary standard you demand of others.
- OK but now I'm forced to think that you didn't already know this, one the top 3 or 4 news stories last week
If the pure assertion of organizations that self-identify as "journalists" counts as "evidence" my pool of evidence the 2020 election was rigged just became enormous.
I read this article, but not because it was particularly relevant to my point. There is something relevant though:
Through the Electronic Registration Information Center, a consortium through which states exchange data about voter registration, Whitmire also said officials periodically pull voter lists and remove those who have more recently registered in a new state.
but it apparently didn't stop Meadows did it?
What was my claim? It was: By strategically choosing not to enforce certain election integrity laws an already insecure system became a trust based system and that is unacceptable.
Also it was a related assertion (hearsay if it was court), they posted no hard data. Just like that witness testimony I posted.
I'm not interested the assertions of government officials, I do not trust them and their claim that they have "fact checked" something does not constitute an investigation nor prevention.
- Nevertheless, the government has made an evidence based claim. If you want to disprove it, you must challenge the evidence.
If there was relevant evidence provided I would examine it.
A real democracy would have a system which doesn't rely on trust.Vote counting at TCF was under pretty strict scrutiny and a lot of bad, disruptive behavior by the GOP was documented there. I see no reason to assume the one piece of evidence you've given is likely to be true.
and you trust the scrutinizes, I don't. You should know well that there is more than "one piece of evidence", I posted one only to demonstrate that you could not debunk everything as you implied you could. I will post more in a dedicated thread once I am assured you understand my claims and the burden of proof they incur.
A judge has already ruled that most of the claims of fraud made that day stemmed from ignorance of standard vote counting procedures, I can't tell whether this claim was reviewed by that judge.
Even if that was the case, I don't care. I wouldn't care if the entire supreme court and 100% of the senate said the same thing. A million assertions sum to an assertion.
I am not telling you that you can't believe what you hear for the purposes of day to day life, but debate is when you stop using proxies and start using evidence and logic. A judgement is evidence only of the opinion of the judge, the evidence submitted to the court is the potentially relevant material.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, the principal is about stopping elected officials from using the power of their office to control what information the citizenry can use to evaluate them
That may be your principle but it is not the principle of free speech.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
It can also be erased with the push of a button.
The button that destroys the internet as we know it, nothing short of that would stop it.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
2020 election(s), and to a less extent previous ones. Many places, obviously the motivation would be the strongest in swing districts of swing states. The strongest evidence includes whistleblower election workers, dead (or unbelievably old) voters requesting and returning mail in ballots, video and electronic recordings of counting resuming after judges have been removed or dismissed.Stop being so timid. Who? What? When? Where? How? I am assuming that you are afraid to get specific because as soon as you do, I will roll out the fact checks and Secretaries of State PR and court rulings by Trump appointed judges that dismissed your bullshit as incredible more than a year ago.
No I am not being specific because there are too many examples to remember of the top of my head. Just because I can't name concentration camp guards without looking them up doesn't mean there wasn't a holocaust.
On top of that many tweets and videos have been removed by censor, and search engines like google intentionally shunt you away from alternatives or archives making it quite the chore to recover all of what I remember.
For the purposes of demonstrating that you can't "fact check" anything of relevance on demand (which should be obvious) take this testimony Michigan Election Fraud Hearing Testimony, 12/1/20 3 (bitchute.com)
lol, well then they weren't coordinated with all the republicans demanding audits were they...lol, they were the same people, generally speaking. For example, Mark Meadows the very man coordinating all the electoral fraud claims was illegally registered to vote in three states. Trump's very own Chief of Staff was falsely claiming to live in a trailer out in the North Carolina woods. lol. what a pack of crooks.
Hold yourself to the evidentiary standard you demand of others.
The proven fact is that no one assumed the duty of disproving or making impossible plausible theories of fraud,This is easily disproved. If you ever summon to courage to cite an actual official claim of election fraud, I will give you the names of the investigators and officials who disproved that claim. 2020 featured the most thoroughly scrutinized election results in the history of democracy.
I'm not interested the assertions of government officials, I do not trust them and their claim that they have "fact checked" something does not constitute an investigation nor prevention.
A real democracy would have a system which doesn't rely on trust.
and if it's no one's job to do that then there is no such thing as "our democracy".Premise false therefore conclusion fails.
We'll see.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
There are no arguments in this thread OP included.
Created:
-->
@Username
Debate is exactly what you should be doing if you're confident because either you are deluding yourself and need some help destroying the delusion or you're right and the best way to assure that is again to expose your arguments to debunking.
People who aren't confident (and that goes with a context, confident in their arguments and conclusions) don't have anything that needs proving, they need to learn and think before they are ready to debate.
Now of course some people just like conflict and this has nothing to do with debate, that's annoying.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
the government should regulate tuition costs to keep them reasonable. and they should make sure student loans dont hurt people's credit reports.
Definitely the wrong answer. Let me explain how "social democracy" works:
(A) Government says X privilege is a right
(B) Government makes departments handing out stolen money and regulations making X easier to get as a "compromise"
(C) X is still had through an open market, the artificial government made increase in effective demand increases the price
People flagellate because X is a supposedly a right and now it's becoming harder to get!
Government hands out even more stolen money, makes even more regulations
....rinse and repeat until:
(X)Price of X is so insanely and "inexplicably high" that people start calling for the X industry to be subject to price fixing, and then nationalization.
(Z) Government (whose policies caused the price) throw up their hands with an evil grin [guess what, price fixing and nationalization don't improve supply]
Rail transport, housing, healthcare, education, and in some non-US examples food
Overwhelming evidence.
If people want affordable college again they need to stop rewarding colleges charging absurd tuition for useless degrees.
Now as for this student loan forgiveness stuff, a very very important question as to the practical effects depends on who is left with the bill.
Paying the loans off with tax money = maximum evil and maximum damage
Telling the lenders that the government scammed them (yes it was the government, who do you think backs these things or provides them directly) = minimum damage, minimum evil
Telling the universities to give the money back = medium damage, medium evil
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Oh I'll make it: Ballots, ballot mailers (the most important bits) were discarded or destroyed before audits could be done and I believe that would not have been done (or done nearly as quickly) save for the intention to prevent an audit from ever occurring.so vague. What election? What jurisdiction? What evidence? Why are you using the passive voice? Who did what when where how?
2020 election(s), and to a less extent previous ones. Many places, obviously the motivation would be the strongest in swing districts of swing states. The strongest evidence includes whistleblower election workers, dead (or unbelievably old) voters requesting and returning mail in ballots, video and electronic recordings of counting resuming after judges have been removed or dismissed.
It is a proven fact that major theories on cheating were and remain today plausibleI agree that Republicans were openly cheating in the 2020 election.
lol, well then they weren't coordinated with all the republicans demanding audits were they...
PLAUSIBLE is the superficial appearance of likelihood in the absence of proof. To say that "it a proven fact that x is plausible" is deliberately deceptive language- there is no doubt whatsoever that x might have happened, etc.
The proven fact is that no one assumed the duty of disproving or making impossible plausible theories of fraud, and if it's no one's job to do that then there is no such thing as "our democracy".
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Especially when people intentionally don't keep records and destroy records they did make.Sounds like you have some kind of accusation to make but then you don't make it. Why?
Oh I'll make it: Ballots, ballot mailers (the most important bits) were discarded or destroyed before audits could be done and I believe that would not have been done (or done nearly as quickly) save for the intention to prevent an audit from ever occurring. The IRS keeps records for decades, all the space and time in the world when it's about stealing money, so little when it's about democracy.
Perhaps I could have been clearer.All of that is a proven fact.What is? Your post is so vague I have no idea what you're talking about.
[ADOL:] Because none of the theories of cheating were disproven, most weren't even addressed, they were supported by exactly the amount of evidence one could reasonably hope for. All of that is a proven fact.
The sentence immediately preceding the one you were uncertain about is what is being referenced. As I read it back it's obviously false in the "none of the theories", some of the theories could be disproved in seconds. It is a proven fact that major theories on cheating were and remain today plausible, and supported by the scope and type of evidence that could be reasonably expected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Disney is a private sector corporation acting within the best interests of it’s shareholders.
That is debatable and not at all relevant to the issue regardless. If the interest of the shareholders was for some reason to gas Jews that would in no way mean Disney should be firebombed any less.
Freedom of speech exists to protect agents such as this.
As others have pointed out an amendment of the constitution exists to protect agents such as this (non government from government). The principle of free speech has justifications far deeper than "cause some guys in the 18th century thought so".
DJT was president of the United States. Freedom of speech exists to protect agents of the free market from individuals in positions such as this.
and they treated him just the same before he was president, after they decided he was the most dangerous man in America. The struggle I referred to is wider than one principle and one issue, and that was the point.
You should not lie to people, but if you're in a war you lie to your enemy whenever you can. It does not matter if they have not lied to you, they have bombed you and thus forfeited all of their rights until such time as the threat they pose has ended.
Do you understand the distinction and why that distinction is relevant to this conversation?
I understand the distinction between public and private entities. I also understand that the reason the founders believed they needed to limit the government and not the people is because the people were already limited by laws. The problem they were trying to fix was the aggressive use of force by government.
They could not conceive of a way a private entity could seriously hamper free speech, they thought the government was the only danger in that regard. However they did leave one example that tells us how they would view social media, the US postal service.
They considered any interference with the post to by a grave sin against the people. The idea that someone would open letters to potentially censor them was abhorrent to them.
The civil rights act similarly requires a distinction between rendering a service and control of speech. For instance a racist shop might claim that infringes on their free speech to be forced to provide a burger to a black person, but it doesn't. Neither is censorship on social media an infringement on their free speech. They may choose to deliver text to other people, or they may choose not to deliver text; but they may not discriminate and that has no reflection on what they choose themselves to say.
A racist shop owner can still be racist even if they serve a black man. A rabidly collectivist social media company can still be rabidly collectivist even if they deliver messages they disagree with over the internet. They are more like a postal service than they are a newspaper, they would never have become the defacto public square if they acted like a newspaper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I assume your original post was an attempt at explaining why ILP5 and others here have such s as difficult time acknowledging such obvious and basic facts - basically because tribalism and war.
No, I was explaining that there are situations where the people/organizations you attack aren't identical to the ones who attacked you directly. If Disney is acting as a soldier in a tribe, and there is strong reason to believe it is, then attacking it is part of the same struggle where DJT was attacked.
No one is changing the world via DART.
3RU7AL has the perfect answer.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
believes the election was stolen, I mean really believes itBelief is easy. Proof is hard.
Especially when people intentionally don't keep records and destroy records they did make.
If you deposited your money in a bank, and then they claimed you didn't; and then you demand an audit to prove they didn't steal the money "Prove it" is the wrong response from the bank.
By its nature a bank sells trust and accountability. A bank that doesn't provide accountability is a fraudulent bank.
By the same token a democratic government by its nature advertises accurate elections. A democratic government that can't prove or at least verify the accuracy of its elections is not democratic after all.
This is why you cut off the other clause in my sentence. Because none of the theories of cheating were disproven, most weren't even addressed, they were supported by exactly the amount of evidence one could reasonably hope for. All of that is a proven fact.
Much as you can't defeat a pro-life argument without acknowledging the claim that the fetus has rights, you cannot bypass the claims of untrustworthy elections. The concept of insurrection depends on agreement on what the legitimate government is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You and I have very different impressions of coal, but I take your point.
Created: