Total posts: 4,833
-->
@3RU7AL
there is no reason at all for the state to get involved with this in any way
That's oversimplifying it a bit. The state does get involved when there is a very strong claim of harm to the child. That also the root claim of anti-abortion stances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you think?
I think that the only people who declare that life is meaningless, and believe it deep down, commit suicide. The rest are deluding themselves to evade reality. Sometimes the reality is that they have none of what they want. Sometimes the reality is that they feel guilty for what they have.
I think that a would be murderer is more likely to become a nihilist because it helps them avoid guilt.
I think a would be thief is more likely to become a communist because it helps them avoid guilt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
@TheUnderdog
You've got to prove it first......Beyond all doubt.[TheUnderdog] Correct. False conviction rates are low.
That is not a hard statistic in any sense. You don't know how many are false, all you know is how many were reversed.
[Swagnarok]Rape nowadays is generally defined as any penetrative sexual contact without consent, with consent being revocable at any time.Suppose that a boyfriend and girlfriend are doing it. They reach a climax, but then the girlfriend says "Stop". The boyfriend is, by now, in a state of mind where he refuses to stop once they've come that far, and proceeds for another 15 seconds until he finishes.Bullet to the head or electric chair?
Something that has not been said in this thread yet, and which is often left out of discussions of punishment is the game theory aspect.
Why are there punishments? There are two reasons:
Revenge
Prevention
Revenge is emotional, it is primarily felt by the victims and the victim's circle but can be somewhat felt by anyone with emotional investment. It is not evil to want revenge but it is also not rational. Attempting to quantify an appropriate level of revenge probably won't ever get any better than "an eye for an eye"
Prevention is subject to much more rational analysis. When you have a certain punishment does it reduce the general violation of rights or increase it?
Yes it can increase it. There is an ideal level of punishment for every crime that is sufficient to scare almost everyone away from the crime and to fully motivate avoiding risks. Punishments above that level start to increase secondary effects without increasing dissuasion.
You can see this from a game theory perspective.
So a guy raped his girlfriend for 15 seconds as in your example. If the legal system makes no gradation in punishment between those 15 seconds and some sociopath kidnapping and murdering women, if it will still kill you; then what is in this guy's best interest?
A) Don't have a girlfriend
B) Get drunk because apparently in Underdog's theories this can derapify your actions
C) Kill the witness rather than face the music
C is the secondary effects I'm talking about. If the penalties are so severe (and it doesn't get more severe than death), of course the perpetrator is going to use deadly force to escape them. If J-walking carried the death penalty but was also all but unavoidable society would be entirely destroyed because people would destroy the government rather than be subject to such absurdity.
In your example there was 15 seconds, what if it was 1 second? What if it was precisely the nerve reaction time?
As it stands all hope rests on the jury and judge, and just like the suspect may choose radical options to avoid an unjust punishment so too juries sometimes would rather see someone walk free than have their life destroyed (figuratively or literally).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are quite the character.
People choose to drive, therefore they accept the risks.People don't choose to be wrongfully convicted of murder or rape.... And therefore shouldn't be expected to accept a death sentence as a risk of being wrongfully convicted.And being wrongfully convicted and executed is no justification for anything.
Very sane.
Money is make believe, and no one actually needs to be homeless, but that's just how a greed based system works.
Mostly insane.
So I will give all my money to a homeless person, if you will give up the system and go live in a remote cave and hunt and gather for a living.
Hehe, no money is make believe. Give the homeless person your house... not so easy eh.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Which is to say they start out producing sperm, then they start producing eggs. There is no biological law that says you can't produce both, and many organisms do. It really has nothing to do with the issue though does it.
The issue is the confusion arising from equivocation, that is using different definitions for the same word in the same line of reasoning.
They say gender isn't sex, gender is social and sex is biological.... but then they (as you just did) bring up biological trivia. Why would clownfish gamete production matter if gender isn't biological? Why would surgery be required if it the concept isn't biological.
Even in organizations claiming to promote the redefinition they repeatedly mess up and make claims like "fastest female swimmer", "first female joint chief (or whatever)."
The people (not all, but most) pushing for the redefinition only want it to apply in precisely the contexts they deem appropriate. They have no problem using old definitions if any when it becomes convenient. That is quintessential equivocation fallacy.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If I decided to use my car as a lawn decoration, that would be its goal. That doesn’t make the statement “cars are made for lawn decorations” accurate.
I didn't say "the purpose of corporations is to cover the world in cotton candy", I pointed out that not all corporations must seek profit as their highest priority.
This is also a poor analogy for the simple reasons that cars are made for a very specific purpose, they were designed so. A corporation as I pointed out has no design except that which is given it by the charter.
A better analogy would be saying that a sheet metal factory could produce lawn decorations or it could help produce cars.
An even better analogy would be you saying cars are made to commute, and me pointing out that some are made to race or look good.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
It's not possible to debate that, it's a matter of pure definitions. You either agree on the definition or you don't, if you don't there is no point using the word to communicate.That's true of basically everything?
That's true of every definition (which relates the sounds/symbol to a concept). Reality and concepts of reality are not subject to arbitrage (or rather the belief that they are is fallacy). However if run into somebody on a desert island who doesn't speak your language and he just refuses to use anything but "huwuhu" to describe a coconut that's not something you can disprove.
If their definition of 'sex' and my definition differ, it's completely possible to debate which is the more useful or reasonable definition.
(A) A concept can be more or less useful than another. You could debate that.
(B) You could also argue that a word has in the past been used in such a way that your redefinition is more accurate to the de facto rather than de jure concept.
You could not argue that a series of sounds or letters must imply a certain concept.
If thett does not which to debate you on A or B, I will.
I refuse to use the word "woman" for males because I believe the redefinition of the word as well as the redefinition of 'gender' from a synonym of sex to a different concept was largely pushed for dishonest reasons, namely to extract privileges during the period of equivocation. The definition of gender/sex as identifying the egg producer and the sperm producer, and all that implies for mammals is very useful and useful word-concepts should not be changed so as to maximize language utility.
There are better phrases and words to use for all the concepts in question that don't require an equivocation period. LGBTQ 'gender' = gender role for instance.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit.
That is a common misconception. A corporation is just a legal abstraction owned by one or more individuals. You can write anything you want into a corporate charter. You can make a corporation that dedicates itself to covering the land area of the planet with cotton candy.
Most corporations explicitly or implicitly place profit as the highest goal because the owners want a higher standard of living (just like everyone else).
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
I do not agree with the notion that there are biological features inherently attached to the gender you were assigned at birth that permanently designate you as one sex or the other--a view backed up by experts. If that's something you want to do a debate on, I'd be happy to.
It's not possible to debate that, it's a matter of pure definitions. You either agree on the definition or you don't, if you don't there is no point using the word to communicate.
Created:
There is no double standard here, no hypocrisy. Perhaps some poisoning the well....like attacking Hunter in an effort to disparage his dad?
No, poisoning the well is trying to discredit an argument by saying the one who advances it is toxic; subclass ad hominem. Attacking hunter (who isn't making any arguments) to disparage his dad would be guilt by association.
However claiming that this story is or was about guilt by association is a strawman. The claim has never been Hunter = degenerate therefore Joe bad. It has always been Hunter = corrupt/criminal agent of Joe, therefore Joe is corrupt/criminal, therefore Joe bad.
If there were a case against Hunter, the floor of the House of Representatives is not where it should be tried. This is political theatre.
The floor is where cases against the sitting president de jure are tried by constitutional implication and by recent precedent.
Was recent precedent political theatre? Yes, and old precedent too. In fact just about everything that happens in DC is political theatre since 1790.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Here's a possibly unpopular opinion. I don't believe that thinking deeply about your identity is a good or a healthy thing to do, even though our society now finds it incredibly important to do and something we must do nonstop.
I am 100% behind that.
Our identity, like the identity of a chair or a tree is enormously complex. Imagine every category a chair, tree, or human can belong to? To obsess over it necessarily requires incredible simplification.
More importantly thinking about those categories out of a relevant context is pointless. "Who am I" is the question of a novice philosopher. "What should I do" is the wise question... not the least because who you are is mostly what you do.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
There is no fallacy in addressing the issue and pointing out the hypocrisy.
There was no hypocrisy. You were talking about chain of custody for evidence and specifically claimed there were "no issues there" in regards to accusation of sex trafficking:
Besides, I would really like to know about the sex trafficking charges against Gaetz. That seem less difficult to decipher since he has admitted to actions that could be classified as such. No chain of custody issues there...
There is no double standard here, no hypocrisy. Perhaps some poisoning the well. The obvious intention is to imply that if some people call Gaetz bad his opposition is awarded a "get out of jail free" card for Hunter.
POST #26- complains about WHATABOUTISMPOST #33- what about Hillary?Yes. It is quite amusing. His second post to me (his first was pure snark) was literally whataboutism with whataboutism as the subject. Apparently, DOL believes fallacies are what other people do.
My second post to you:
Please point out the whataboutism.
[oromagi] POST #26- complains about WHATABOUTISMPOST #33- what about Hillary?[SkepticalOne echos]
From your wiki link:
It [Whataboutism] does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.
Watergate and Spygate are analogous events that are being given differing social prominence.
Created:
@RationalMadman
What exactly did you base your 'sources' and 'conduct' allocation on? One source I used on solar panels? That's it?
You used more than one source, do you not remember? What about the totally irrelevant story with Margret Thatcher and the Gaia earth spirit?
What you did with my dam question is literally debating for Pro and acting like Pro said it.
Many times in my analysis I pointed out obvious counter-arguments, I did not pretend Pro said them but more than a few times he did subsequently. Just like he did point out and cite dam disasters well in excess of chernobyl deaths in round 3. You'll find it under 'Hydropower accidents'.
[Madman from Comment] For literally every point I make, you argue against it yourself pretty much throughout your analysis but for every single point Pro makes, you go out of your way to agree with it. I'm not imagining this, it's literally for every point pretty much.
Well it can't be literally every single one and then "pretty much", in fact it was not every single one just the large majority of them.... In an objective general sense he is way more right than you on this issue.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't have given you the points if you had actually made an argument that solar, wind, and hydro were better. As it was Benjamin barely made a relevant argument and that barely beat your none at all.
Don't get confused here. Not everything in the analysis was a basis for scoring, most wasn't because most of your points and his points went sailing off into the void having no real connection to the resolution.
I made a comment about it being sad that "better" had to be defined, but it was especially so seeing how little comparing you two did. It's like you were arguing between cars and trains and you neglected to talk about... speed... or passenger capacity, focusing entirely on accidents and whether or not railroads were built by monopolies.
Created:
#4 - Con - Con says he meant all the drawbacks of renewable
energy are present and pretty much as, if not more, severe in nuclear
energy..... still not true.
Con says "Rather than just fixate on Chernobyl, which my opponent equates to a rare plane crash, let's identify just what nuclear poisoning/contamination is and how severely it can affect people exposed to it.", but if the accident event is rare all you are explaining is the details of the rare event....
Con says "'Ionizing radiation' does indeed refer to nuclear, it is another name that is more specifically precise, since it refers to ions and electrons being involved, not only to the nucleus of the atom." Not even close really. Ionizing radiation is radiation that can create ions by exciting an electron enough to disconnect it from an atom or break a chemical bond. It's the breaking of chemical bonds that can harm DNA.
Ionizing radiation does not need to come from a nuclear reaction, a tanning booth qualifies.
Con goes on to claim that Pro hasn't explained why "it" [apparently dangerous radiation] is worth it, it was fairly obvious from round one that Pro was claiming it was worth it for the power. He used the plane example as an illustration that there is a level of risk which humans accept in order to get things they want. Alternatives have risks too. You can't just say "nuclear power is a risk" you also have to demonstrate that the alternatives are less of a risk. Planes may crash, but boats may sink, and walking a thousand miles isn't good for your knees.
Con again alludes to a conspiracy to hide the data. While such conspiracies may very well exist, allusion to them is hardly a replacement for an argument. If he had made an argument as to a higher risk than is cited by Pro that would be one thing; but to simply say they're hiding the data and let's assume it's bad?.. no beuno
Con has a copy paste from what seems like somebody trying to sell solar panels to some boomers who have paid off their house. If Con was taking this seriously there would be some form of quantitative analysis. There is no contention that solar panels don't have CO2 smoke stacks or that they don't need much maintenance. This resolution is about comparison. Do they need less maintenance over 100 years than the equivalent nuclear facility? How many solar panels does it take? Cost of installment. Cost of maintenance... sigh moving on.
Con asks "So, what is it hydropower did worse exactly?"... it shouldn't be a matter requiring citation to know that dam failures are catastrophic events in proportion to the power the dam could produce. In WW2 an intentional dam destruction killed over a million (this is from memory not being looked up).
Con continues with this absurdity "Even if somehow 51 people died to fossil fuels" 5100 people have already died from coal particulates. 5100 people have probably died in methane explosions. The worst part about it is that it is totally irrelevant. Fossil fuel safety, reliability, cost are all irrelevant because the resolution takes for granted that they are being replaced.
Con says "I am perplexed as to how Pro can say that's a big bad problem when to make a nuclear plant, you need a huge amount of land space, do you think that some area is magically free, flat and wildlife free?", yes those nuclear power plants. So notoriously space consuming unlike the compact solar farm.
#5 - Pro says fission reactors are quick to build and cheap. Maybe I missed it before but this is the first time I remember seeing cost and build time explicitly mentioned by Pro, and I can therefore award score on that with a clean conscience. Similarly he mentions the fact that modern reactors are intrinsically safer with references.
Pro makes an argument about toxic waste from solar power, I don't think it's very strong point but neither was the claim that solar panels are recyclable. Perhaps one could say that if they aren't recyclable it isn't really renewable, but just as Pro felt comfortable including fusion reactors (that don't exist) in his arguments Con should feel comfortable including ultra-stable wind and solar. He didn't and I don't think he will.
Pro finally points out that solar farms take a large amount of space.
Pro points out the piles of corpses associated with broken dams.
Pro comes in with quantitative analysis of area use ++
#6 - Con says "every single stage of uranium (or equivalent) extraction is both energy-heavy and brutally devastating if any safety procedures are not correctly adhered to.", Pro cannot respond to this or anything else. If he did claim it before it was not with citations. So I am comfortable judging it with my own knowledge, that's false uranium ore is not significantly more dangerous than many other radioactive rocks. It is hardly devastating until the very last stages of concentration and refinement.
Con says "On the other hand, RE is passively available to the entire world, poor or rich country, dictatorship or democracy. ", this he has repeated several times and I wish Pro had given the simple and obvious answer: No it isn't. The whole world has wind, the whole world has solar flux, but the whole world does not have wind turbines or endless fields of solar panels. If the industrialized world is going to give the rest of the world wind and solar generators it can give the rest of the world electrical energy form nuclear reactors.
Con claims "Pro's rebuttals largely revolve around the fact that nuclear waste can be recycled", no that is not at all fair. He included it, but it hardly revolved around it.
Con claims "we still don't know the problems attached to NP in terms of its byproducts", Pro's references disagree.
Con points out that solar panels as they are now are not solar panels as they must be, a fair point as I suggested above.
Con claims that to get uranium requires harming the environment more than a dam. In my opinion neither side argued this well at all. Pro argued that a new lake constitutes environmental harm, it's environmental change obviously but not necessarily harm. An open pit mine may be an eyesore but when they're done they tend to end up as lakes too.
So this debate was not won deductively by either side, therefore the points I award cannot be justified certainly. It is tempting to try and damn Con for not understanding that dams are dangerous (pun intended) but the relevance is not particularly high. Overall Con simply did not do any kind of quantitative analysis which would be required to compare different factors between wind/solar and nuclear. Pro granted nuclear was more dangerous in round 1, yet Con kept making a big deal out of it. If Con wanted more than the admission of "safer by a slim margin" he needed more than the presumption that nuclear was a lot more dangerous than Pro's references claimed it was because "devious". Con failed entirely on reliability. Pro's essential claim which he finally backed in round 3 was that it didn't matter if nuclear was slightly more dangerous than a solar panel because it was safe enough to be ignored, meanwhile nuclear reactors could actually be built fast enough and cheap enough to replace fossil fuels in a generation.
There is no absolute or agreed upon way to balance risk to human life against dollars and joules but the notion that there is no acceptable tradeoff is pure emotional appeal. No human has ever lived without some risk, anything less risky than driving a car should not be used as an objection in serious and honest debate.
It is my judgement that Pro made more important points than Con and defended them.
Con says "Rather than just fixate on Chernobyl, which my opponent equates to a rare plane crash, let's identify just what nuclear poisoning/contamination is and how severely it can affect people exposed to it.", but if the accident event is rare all you are explaining is the details of the rare event....
Con says "'Ionizing radiation' does indeed refer to nuclear, it is another name that is more specifically precise, since it refers to ions and electrons being involved, not only to the nucleus of the atom." Not even close really. Ionizing radiation is radiation that can create ions by exciting an electron enough to disconnect it from an atom or break a chemical bond. It's the breaking of chemical bonds that can harm DNA.
Ionizing radiation does not need to come from a nuclear reaction, a tanning booth qualifies.
Con goes on to claim that Pro hasn't explained why "it" [apparently dangerous radiation] is worth it, it was fairly obvious from round one that Pro was claiming it was worth it for the power. He used the plane example as an illustration that there is a level of risk which humans accept in order to get things they want. Alternatives have risks too. You can't just say "nuclear power is a risk" you also have to demonstrate that the alternatives are less of a risk. Planes may crash, but boats may sink, and walking a thousand miles isn't good for your knees.
Con again alludes to a conspiracy to hide the data. While such conspiracies may very well exist, allusion to them is hardly a replacement for an argument. If he had made an argument as to a higher risk than is cited by Pro that would be one thing; but to simply say they're hiding the data and let's assume it's bad?.. no beuno
Con has a copy paste from what seems like somebody trying to sell solar panels to some boomers who have paid off their house. If Con was taking this seriously there would be some form of quantitative analysis. There is no contention that solar panels don't have CO2 smoke stacks or that they don't need much maintenance. This resolution is about comparison. Do they need less maintenance over 100 years than the equivalent nuclear facility? How many solar panels does it take? Cost of installment. Cost of maintenance... sigh moving on.
Con asks "So, what is it hydropower did worse exactly?"... it shouldn't be a matter requiring citation to know that dam failures are catastrophic events in proportion to the power the dam could produce. In WW2 an intentional dam destruction killed over a million (this is from memory not being looked up).
Con continues with this absurdity "Even if somehow 51 people died to fossil fuels" 5100 people have already died from coal particulates. 5100 people have probably died in methane explosions. The worst part about it is that it is totally irrelevant. Fossil fuel safety, reliability, cost are all irrelevant because the resolution takes for granted that they are being replaced.
Con says "I am perplexed as to how Pro can say that's a big bad problem when to make a nuclear plant, you need a huge amount of land space, do you think that some area is magically free, flat and wildlife free?", yes those nuclear power plants. So notoriously space consuming unlike the compact solar farm.
#5 - Pro says fission reactors are quick to build and cheap. Maybe I missed it before but this is the first time I remember seeing cost and build time explicitly mentioned by Pro, and I can therefore award score on that with a clean conscience. Similarly he mentions the fact that modern reactors are intrinsically safer with references.
Pro makes an argument about toxic waste from solar power, I don't think it's very strong point but neither was the claim that solar panels are recyclable. Perhaps one could say that if they aren't recyclable it isn't really renewable, but just as Pro felt comfortable including fusion reactors (that don't exist) in his arguments Con should feel comfortable including ultra-stable wind and solar. He didn't and I don't think he will.
Pro finally points out that solar farms take a large amount of space.
Pro points out the piles of corpses associated with broken dams.
Pro comes in with quantitative analysis of area use ++
#6 - Con says "every single stage of uranium (or equivalent) extraction is both energy-heavy and brutally devastating if any safety procedures are not correctly adhered to.", Pro cannot respond to this or anything else. If he did claim it before it was not with citations. So I am comfortable judging it with my own knowledge, that's false uranium ore is not significantly more dangerous than many other radioactive rocks. It is hardly devastating until the very last stages of concentration and refinement.
Con says "On the other hand, RE is passively available to the entire world, poor or rich country, dictatorship or democracy. ", this he has repeated several times and I wish Pro had given the simple and obvious answer: No it isn't. The whole world has wind, the whole world has solar flux, but the whole world does not have wind turbines or endless fields of solar panels. If the industrialized world is going to give the rest of the world wind and solar generators it can give the rest of the world electrical energy form nuclear reactors.
Con claims "Pro's rebuttals largely revolve around the fact that nuclear waste can be recycled", no that is not at all fair. He included it, but it hardly revolved around it.
Con claims "we still don't know the problems attached to NP in terms of its byproducts", Pro's references disagree.
Con points out that solar panels as they are now are not solar panels as they must be, a fair point as I suggested above.
Con claims that to get uranium requires harming the environment more than a dam. In my opinion neither side argued this well at all. Pro argued that a new lake constitutes environmental harm, it's environmental change obviously but not necessarily harm. An open pit mine may be an eyesore but when they're done they tend to end up as lakes too.
So this debate was not won deductively by either side, therefore the points I award cannot be justified certainly. It is tempting to try and damn Con for not understanding that dams are dangerous (pun intended) but the relevance is not particularly high. Overall Con simply did not do any kind of quantitative analysis which would be required to compare different factors between wind/solar and nuclear. Pro granted nuclear was more dangerous in round 1, yet Con kept making a big deal out of it. If Con wanted more than the admission of "safer by a slim margin" he needed more than the presumption that nuclear was a lot more dangerous than Pro's references claimed it was because "devious". Con failed entirely on reliability. Pro's essential claim which he finally backed in round 3 was that it didn't matter if nuclear was slightly more dangerous than a solar panel because it was safe enough to be ignored, meanwhile nuclear reactors could actually be built fast enough and cheap enough to replace fossil fuels in a generation.
There is no absolute or agreed upon way to balance risk to human life against dollars and joules but the notion that there is no acceptable tradeoff is pure emotional appeal. No human has ever lived without some risk, anything less risky than driving a car should not be used as an objection in serious and honest debate.
It is my judgement that Pro made more important points than Con and defended them.
Created:
5000 characters really? Well I know I'll have to do this in the future and can make it pretty next time.
#1 - Pro - Definition of "Better": Sad that it has to be said, tells you something about the shenanigans that go on around here. (comment only)
#1 - Pro - ADRESSING SAFETY CONCERNS: Essentially the claim is that the risk exists but is not substantial per joule produced (specifically compared with coal).
#1 - Pro - WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY CAN AND SHOULD REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS - Nuclear plants has a high energy output: Claims nuclear power plants are powerful, while this is certainly colloquially true the kind of figures that would actually support Pro's case here would be watt/$ maintenance, watt/$ construction, or maybe watt/land area used. If Con fails to make this point this analysis won't affect scoring.
#1 - Pro - WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY CAN AND SHOULD REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS - Nuclear energy is far more fuel efficient than fossil fuels: This is not a fair point, one does not find uranium ingots lying around. A fair comparison is the energy density of uranium bearing ores vs coal or oil. Obviously it would depend on the ore, but this analysis oversimplified. If Con fails to make this point this analysis won't affect scoring.
#1 - Pro - WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY CAN AND SHOULD REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS - Nuclear reliability and longevity: The point is well taken however one of the quotations from a citation is misleading. If X costs 10% of Y in every meaningful way it doesn't matter if X only produces half the time Y does. Only the very smallest country has so few power plants that they cannot alternate and average out. Nations share energy. A useful comparison would incorporate all variables into an average power output and compare costs. If Con fails to make this point this analysis won't affect scoring.
#2 - Con - Nuclear Power is not renewable: Notes that if it does replace fossil fuels the supply will be exhausted sooner than "thousands of years", I find this argument especially poor because this claim is easily susceptible to math. Assuming the previous citations of pro as to the remaining fuel supply (which are subject to many factors) did not account for increasing demand as a replacement for fossil fuels Pro gave a link https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx which has the yearly energy production breakdown. The additional nuclear fuel used would be proportional to the additional energy produced. The change would be from 10.3->(10.3+2.8 + 23.5 + 36.7) = 1:7.12 so "thousands of years"/7.11 ~= 281 years. That's 281 years to perfect fusion with no carbon emissions. "renewable" was not part of the resolution, only a better alternative and the framework made it clear that the metric of acceptability was carbon emissions. If Pro fails to make this point this analysis won't affect scoring.
In this section Con also claims "nuclear energy cannot be extracted from non-radioactive elements. I will properly explain why this is in Round 2 but Pro made it seem like all elements other than iron could be used, when in reality the sources are limited." I know off the top of my head this is false but most people wouldn't so it isn't common knowledge. We'll see what Pro does.
In this section Con claims that thorium is too precious to be used for energy because it is used for its material properties. As the owner of thoriated TIG rods I can confirm, however this shows that Con's understanding of the relative scales is off by a three or four orders of magnitude. Any controlled nuclear reaction renders the material of that reaction infinitely more valuable as an energy source than a metal. If you have enough to be making metal alloys with it you have enough to power the world for a very very long time.
#2 - Con - The devious history of nuclear energy: Claims "In fact, Pro is wrong to say NE is manageably cheaper at all," and provides a comparison between nuclear and fossil in the 80s. Pro said nuclear was cheaper than the non-carbon emitting alternatives today. He did not say it was cheaper than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not an option allowed by the resolution. This is not a scoring difference on argument because fossil fuels are excluded however I may consider it a conduct problem as it treads close to a strawman.
Con also claims in this section "Nuclear energy is sprawled with disinformation and cover-ups to enable certain interested parties that profit from its success." welcome to earth Con, on the face of it this can hardly be expected to sway a comparison between different technologies as the problem is in the men not the technology.
#2 - Con - So, why not renewable over nuclear? : Con claims "Pro has one attack on RE; they are not reliable." That is essentially accurate. If I were to make the case for nuclear watt/$ would be my first line of attack as that is what separates feasible from fantasy. I was not making the case however so this is sufficient refutation if a refutation it is.
#2 - Con says "we have to begin using very (ironically) energy-demanding means of mining the radioactive materials", if the energy produced was not thousands of times greater than the energy required to mine it would never have been a realistic option in the first place. This is a non-issue in the energy context, a case could be made that mining unnecessarily destructive but the case has not been made yet. Even coal easily pays for its own extraction.
#2 - Con goes on to say "we actually have all the drawbacks of renewable energy on top and even perhaps worse.", he did not make that case. The first drawback he mentioned was reliability and he in no way established that a combination of non-nuclear would be any more reliable than nuclear. Certainly having a combination of intermittent power sources increases reliability or more accurately increases 100 year event min power capacity (which is what we really care about). The exact same thing is true of multiple nuclear power sources, and since their base reliability is higher so is the combined reliability.
#2 - Con says "Solar panels themselves are recyclable", I do not know if pro will make this point so it may not affect scoring; but everything is recyclable given enough energy. Solar panels are not easily recycled like say asphalt or glass. Con also does not make the argument but creating a solar panel that lasts thousands of years with no maintenance is actually plausible while systems with moving parts or severe thermal stresses like windmills and nuclear reactors will never get there.
#2 - Con finally gets around to Chernobyl, saying "An entire city can become nearly permanently damaged (literally, life can't sufficiently grow back other than some funky mushrooms and any children born in the area will suffer" which I know to be false, but I have to hear it from Pro. I also need to see Pro point out that such an outcome is not a realistic worst case for a modern reactor.
So at this point Pro stands on reliability of nuclear over zero-carbon alternatives. Pro stands on safety but he admitted in that section that solar and wind are safer. Although interesting, Pro's sections on why nuclear is better than fossil are irrelevant.
Without a priority balancing formula safety vs reliability can't be resolved, I also hope to see some cost/time analysis from both sides. Note also that safety and reliability can often be bought with money.
#3 - Pro - Generally correct about the lack of rebuttable material (in a bad way for Con).
Pro says "Add in that nuclear is the lowest emitter of carbon diokside of the energy sources mentioned", this probably a dishonest way to present the information. No carbon emissions are required for nuclear, hydro, solar, or wind. If there are carbon emissions they are incidental to manufacturing and certainly don't need to be that way. Anyone can burn a bunch of oil making solar panels if they wanted but that's not inherent in the technology.
Pro appears to cite Con about Chernobyl... burn
Pro does point out that nuclear energy does not require initially radioactive elements, with sources, so my previous scoring decision is activated.
Pro points out fusion is renewable, I'd say if fusion isn't renewable nothing is. Also note that if we have fusion reactors nobody is going to need to burn anything much less hydrogen.
Pro points out solar panels cost a lot to recycle, hec they cost a lot to make; and you would need so so many to match a nuclear reactor... but I'm not Pro so let's see what the other rounds hold.
The wind turbines as they are currently being built are a total disaster, they fail when they should be designed to last for centuries, they produce sounds when they could be designed to be quiet. I would argue this is the result of artificial demand, when people want to brag about something more than they actually want that thing... but as they are being built Pro's critique stands.
Pro's points on Hydro are mostly overstated, except for pointing out some countries have more or less of the required resource. In fact having been interested in the subject I can say with confidence that almost no major hydro power flow remains untapped in the world. It's an amazing idea with very few downsides, but it's tapped out. Whatever power we have from them that's all we're getting.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well even if he is a lizardman I feel sorry for him. This is why you need to get out of the game before you start leaking. One thing leads to another, then some lunatic named Lin Wood is feeding you fan fiction. You're leaking dye. Sacha Baron Cohen sneaking up on you.... He could have just been "tough on crime, 9/11 bad" guy.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
If that transcript is accurate and it can be confirmed to have originated before the laptop story my opinion will change.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
but you're incredibly naive.Sure but that doesn't get your laptop verified, does it?
It's not mine, and my claim was that three orgs had confirmed it (and by it I mean the data that is being shared around because all you can confirm about a laptop minus the data is that it is a laptop)
Why is it that you aren't "sure you would have heard about it" if the FBI had failed to authenticate the laptop.Because Giuliani, Bannon, and Gaetz would have leaked it.
Because Guiliani etc.. would have leaked FBI findings? That doesn't make sense. If the FBI has the laptop (they do), then they can look at serial numbers, data, everything. If they could show it wasn't Biden's why do you think they would do anything but immediately announce that?
FBI would do everything possible to help the democratic partyIf you think that the FBI is not an overwhelmingly Republican institution that you don't know anything about the FBI. There are a few liberals and a few Democrats but before Trump, a substantial majority of the FBI voted Republican by all accounts.
I'm sure that's why they framed the Trump campaign.
Your job was to prove that the laptop(s) were thrice authenticated and you have failed on all 3 counts.
No my job was to show three orgs claiming to be using the information as true, and I have. I didn't say I had authenticated it three times, I said two media orgs and the DOJ had.
The FBI saying that it has no evidence of Russian disinformation
That isn't all they said. They seized the laptop, haven't let it go, widened the investigation shortly thereafter, and then said it wasn't Russian disinformation and that the emails were authentic. Not that "it had no evidence Russian disinformation".
If you take as a given that there is a laptop which appears to have Hunter's stuff on it, and you can compile a finite list of plausible explanation for its existence then eliminating every possibility except one is a strong argument in favor of the one.Well, if we are going with PLAUSIBLE explanations, then the notion that a guy who spent much of his life as the target of Republican smear campaigns would just casually drop off three laptops with any kind of personal information on them to a guy who just happens to be Giuliani's biggest fan and never even bothered to make a call back to find out what happened to all this important information is not one of those PLAUSIBLE explanations, is it?
Why do you believe there was ever more than one laptop?
As for why he would leave it and never pick it up? Essentially the same reason Joe bragged about using his influence to affect US foreign policy to extort the removal of his personal enemy in the form of a prosecutor going after corruption. Sometimes the bad guys are so used to being bad and invulnerable that they forget what they need to hide.
This is of course glossing over the fact that what you're doing right now is special pleading.I don't think you understand what special pleading means.
I think I do, you have a categorical statement or principle and then you try to claim that it shouldn't apply for any reason other than actually being outside the given category.
- You said, "Here's Biden signature on the receipt!"
- I said, "Why doesn't it match his Driver's License?"
I call that a fairly comprehensive rebuttal.
You are acting like it's not a match, it is neither a match nor a non-match to the untrained eye. People DO write signatures very differently depending on the time and formality. My signature is almost always illegible, everyone I know has illegible signatures on all receipts, but not on their driver's licenses or marriage license.
I still call it special pleading because there is no way in hell that the media you rely on would ever reject a signature match if they thought it implicated one of Trump's sons in something. It wouldn't have even been brought to your attention because left-wing news does not feel the need to show pictures for corroboration. They assert, and if you don't believe that shows how racist and antidemocratic you are.
If I treated all news with the skepticism that extends to demanding photographs of receipts and my personal opinion on whether they match I would reject everything and I am 98% sure you aren't like that.
What's the alternative hypothesis?I can think of plenty but right now we're just disproving your claim. My unproved theories would only muddy.
You think you've come anywhere close to disproving my claim? You have outright dismissed the citations you requested, the citations were complete and irrefutable proof of my claim. Even if (against all odds) it (and by it we mean the emails and other contents on the laptop) was a super complicated Russian plant my assertion would still be true, they would have still confirmed it and they (not me) would have been wrong.
The simplest explanation, the least "conspiratorial" is that the confirmed emails and confirmed videos came from Hunter's laptop and that his laptop was left at a Mac repair shop.With so many prior copies made that experts can't confirm that what hard drive they originated? Why would you have 217 Gb of copies of email files on your personal laptop rather than just mails in your account? That's just maxing out your entire storage for no reason.
Who said the email cache was 217 Gb? You may be entirely used to webmail with cache size limits, but desktop mail clients have no such restrictions and most will try to maintain local copies for indexed searches and rapid startup. Without an enormous amount of attachments not 217 Gb of course.
Doesn't the fact that Biden is alleged to have accidently chosen Rudy Giuliani's biggest fan to fix his PCs rather strain credulity?
Not more than the alternative. There are a lot of people who are political. Assuming election exit polls are accurate it's 25/25 you'll run into a strong partisan.
Why would Hunter Biden, who lives in California, take three laptops to a mac repair shop in Delaware? Yes, his father lives there and Hunter used to live there so he might be visiting but would you travel with three laptops? And if those laptops were so important that you had to bring them with you on vacation and you did accidently get them all simultaneously water damaged on the same trip how would they then be so unimportant that your forgot to pick them up. How big do your vodka tonics have to be to get three laptops water damaged simultaneously anyway?
I haven't heard about the three laptops thing, just one, but that cuts both ways. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction and why would anyone make up a story with such obviously unnecessary components?
If Guiliani is your evil mastermind and he can be stupid why can't Hunter?
You have to believe a whole long line of totally crazy shit is true to buy Giuliani's.
I think we can both agree that Guiliani cannot fabricate a local email cache, so the alternative hypothesis isn't that simple either is it.
This isn't the sole piece of evidence of the conspiracy either. Joe's statements about what he did, Biden's unusual positions, meetings, the testimony of Bobulinski and Shokin.Even if you bought everything else, your conspiracy falls apart on motive. Trump claims that Shokin was investigating the Bidens but we now know for a fact that was never true.
Oh do we? He was investigating burisma. Unless you're claiming investigating burisma isn't the same as investigating Hunter I look forward to having you "prove" your claim here under the same exacting standards you have thus far implied were necessary. (if you are claiming that then you will have convinced me there is little to no hope for you)
Trump claims that Biden was trying to stop an investigation into Burisma but everybody in Ukraine knows that's not true.
Everybody.... it must of taken a long time for you to interview that many.
There was an investigation into Burisma but Shokin was corruptly slow-walking that investigation.
Oh yea that nasty Shokin, Joe just couldn't stand how he wasn't investigating the company his son questionably extracted large amounts of wealth from. Joe is simply that just and honourable.
When Biden demanded Shokin's termination, he was literally representing the Free World- EU, NATO, IMF, World Bank all demanded Shokin out before Ukraine could make any claim of improving democracy and transparency.
More claims, I'm looking forward to declaring media organizations to be "not credible"
POST #33- what about Hillary?
Hilary was not presenting evidence.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Humans don't talk like that, you need to learn from Matt Gaetz as his human-acting is much better than yours.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
People on and off drugs aren't cop-drama villains who carefully plan everything out. I can easily see Hunter leaving it, it was incredibly irresponsible to have videos of you committing crimes unencrypted in the first place.True, but why wouldn’t he go to get it back?
Well he was a busy man. He had fake jobs to do, government officials to meet, so on and so forth. He must have figured it was thrown away or was wiped already. Or maybe he forgot all the damning things that were on it. Outside the movies even careful people slip up sometimes and he does not seem like a careful person.
If it was an impersonator that is hardly explained any better. If your laptop just went missing and it had incriminating stuff unencrypted on it would you just shrug? Maybe this supposed betrayer lied about disposing of it, but in that case Hunter would know exactly who it was when it showed up again. That guy would have suddenly felt suicidal or else come out.
If someone other than Hunter dropped it off, it wasn't anonymously it was via impersonation. The Mac shop knew it was Hunter Biden's based on the invoice.The laptop contents were about Hunter, but the shop owner said that he couldn’t really tell if it was Hunter. The man just said his name was Hunter. Anyone could do that
If it wasn't Hunter then it was someone claiming to be Hunter and like you said the only reason to make that claim is to get the contents discovered. It's a bizarre way to try and get something out to the world. There is no guarantee the tech would look at the contents, if I was fixing someone's laptop and repossessed it I would just wipe it clean I'm not that curious.
That's true for associate's of Hunter as well as Russian spies or plotting ex-mayors of New York. So if it wasn't Hunter it was probably planted evidence and the repair shop guy knew he had a part to play, and if you assume the repair shop guy is part of the conspiracy you no longer need someone to drop it off.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Avoiding the argument AND throwing out accusations are both necessary for whataboutism. You claimed fallacy, but you were mistaken.
No that is an absurd way to look at it. You could fill a book with fallacies and claim they weren't fallacies because you addressed the argument in the last sentence. There was addressing the argument in the same post with a fallacy.
If Gaetz does have the laptop, where did he get it from?In post #10 ILikePie5 suggested Gaetz did not have it, only the contents.This is not a strong rebuttal. Gaetz doesn't have the laptop (even though he claimed to) and only has the info from it. So? My question regarding chain of custody is not answered by this.
That is a deflection. You assumed he had the laptop, then you questioned the chain of custody in that context. You are only now expanding the scope of your comment away from Gaetz because you learned he didn't actually have it.
In fact the full history of the chain of custody as it is reported was laid out before you posted. So it isn't merely a matter of you failing to read the thread, your question was answered already and yet you continue to claim that your question was not answered. In fact it wasn't answered again specifically in response to you.
The data still has an uncertain provenance.
Then the NYP, NYT, and the FBI all proceed based on data of uncertain provenance.
That's actually true, both parts. It's not absolutely proven to be Hunter's laptop and media will almost always run stories without confirming, cops (including feds) will try to use evidence for which there is reasonable doubt. People are convicted despite reasonable doubt all the time.
The interesting part is how suddenly 100% certainty is needed or no story is run, and then when an election goes your way the burden of proof suddenly becomes lighter again. The interesting part is how 50 "intelligence" people all decided it was Russian disinformation "cause you know they do that sort of thing".
Some of the best detective stories involve getting a confession on a bluff, and when the conspiracy shows itself in order to discredit evidence of its existence....
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think an associate of Hunter Biden, who was disgusted with Hunter’s actions brought the laptop anonymously to the shop owner. All in the hopes of that fact that the guy would bring it to light.It doesn’t make any sense for Hunter himself to do this and never get the laptop or hard drive back.
People on and off drugs aren't cop-drama villains who carefully plan everything out. I can easily see Hunter leaving it, it was incredibly irresponsible to have videos of you committing crimes unencrypted in the first place.
If someone other than Hunter dropped it off, it wasn't anonymously it was via impersonation. The Mac shop knew it was Hunter Biden's based on the invoice.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Tell me you think conspiracy theories and transparently biased (bordering on tabloid) sources deserve inordinate amounts of attention without telling me...
So both NYP and NYT are untrustworthy, good to know. I'll try to remember if you link to either in the future.
On the other hand, you have not responded substantively to my op
If you had read the thread you would see your comment was already preempted. Either you still haven't read the thread, or you don't care and are just what-abouting me rather than admit it.
You said:
If Gaetz does have the laptop, where did he get it from?
In post #10 ILikePie5 suggested Gaetz did not have it, only the contents.
In post #13 I confirmed with a link.
People who I will definitely call out if they ever say something like "that's whataboutism":Whataboutism would be throwing out accusations to avoid addressing an argument.
Observe:
[SkepticalOne] Besides, I would really like to know about the sex trafficking charges against Gaetz.
Because that is relevant to Hunter's laptop? I don't think so.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
IF they were in possession of that stolen private data while working on the Trump- that's breaking in and stealing campaign dirt from the Democrats during a Presidential Election- that is classic Watergate and the FBI would not ignore.
It wasn't stolen, and the new example to give is the Clinton-FBI spying framejob. It's much worse than watergate was.
Even brought before Congress an FBI officer would be obligated to say he does not know and cannot say (and Gaetz, of course, is well aware of those restrictions.
Where in the world did you get that? The FBI seized the laptop. If it's not part of an ongoing investigation they can talk about it all they want. (hell they can talk about ongoing investigations, they just choose not to)
The only reason it would be relevant in an ongoing investigation is either to find the people who forged it or if it was genuine and could be used against Biden(s).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@TheUnderdog
[3RU7AL] why aren't corporations run by democratic principles ?why can't people vote for their managers and executives ?[TheUnderdog] It lessens and maybe eliminates the incentive to start a business. What's the point of risking a lot of money and time and hard work only to create a business that can be collectivized by your employees?
He didn't ask why corporations aren't required by law to be employee owned he asked why they aren't.
In reality many are partially or fully employee owned. Most are not however. The reason most are not is because most employees are much more interested in improving their quality of life immediately rather than owning the company.
Investment means risk, in an ideal world a worker believes in his company and wants to own his company more than he wants to own others because he can affect his own company by working diligently.
However because of the artificial credit-culture and the artificial promotion of investment brokers people are incentivized to have no stable cash reserves and to invest in the market in general even if they did have some cash.
Much like how education and medical costs spiral out of control when people stop asking the question, profit and stock sharing options are rare and insufficient because no one seems interested.
There are also of course a few companies that were made by sole actors (tycoons) or old feudal nobility and thus were never intended or welcoming of controlling general investment.
It's a cultural problem that has it's roots in government interference, but even if government interference stopped today conscious effort is required to recalibrate.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
This is not a credible new story.
Nobody said it was new, in fact its age is of great contextual importance. As far as your opinion on credibility, I don't really care. If we can't trust politically opposed media and government agreeing we can't trust anything. I don't trust anything 100% but I won't entertain an uneven playing field for assertions.
As to that big thing about WSJ said X, Fox said Y, bla bla bla.... all claims by other media organizations... what if I say they aren't credible? Yea see how that works. We also know that media orgs do not care about credibility because they ran the Prussia collusion hoax for years and at the end threw their hands up saying "how were we to know, democrats were taking it seriously".
They don't fully verify anything, not anymore.
If any of those e-mails indicated any criminal activity, I am sure we would have heard about it.
Then not only are you unaware of how to determine burden of proof, but you're incredibly naive. You don't hear what they don't want you to hear, that's why you are still trying to discredit the NYP after the FBI has acquired the laptop for a criminal investigation. Why is it that you aren't "sure you would have heard about it" if the FBI had failed to authenticate the laptop.
I'm sure we would have heard about it because I'm sure the FBI would do everything possible to help the democratic party agenda because they helped frame Trump and his associates and don't seem the least worried about it.
DOJ: A good summary with lots of citations, links, and screenshots (amazing concept): https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-doj-fbi-confirm-hunter-biden-laptop-is-not-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign, Note that the next link also confirms DOJ activity via subpoena.
- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We can agree that no US intelligence agency has positively asserted that the laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign (although the fact that Giuliani was meeting with known Russian intelligence assets in Ukraine in the months before launching his October surprise is certainly suggestive). That does little to authenticate Giuliani's story
You're lack of knowledge on epistemology is slowing you down again here. Absence of evidence can certainly be evidence of absence provided the nature of the existent in question is known and would surely produce certain evidence under the observed conditions.
If you see a fluid on the floor (in oxygen atmosphere) and you drop a match on it, and it doesn't burn; that is absence of evidence (no flame) and that rules out all sorts of possibilities. It is not gasoline for instance.
If you knew beforehand that the liquid is either water or gasoline you have proven it is water.
If Sasquatch is a supernatural spirit of the woods the absence of bodies means nothing. If Sasquatch is a hominid ape absence of bodies is a strong argument for absence of Sasquatch.
The absence of evidence for a god is not proof that no god exists, but the absence of speech from a specific god whose purported nature implies that he has lots of things to tell you is evidence of the absence of such a god.
If you take as a given that there is a laptop which appears to have Hunter's stuff on it, and you can compile a finite list of plausible explanation for its existence then eliminating every possibility except one is a strong argument in favor of the one.
In this case either it is real or a forgery. The Russians aren't the only ones that could have forged it, but they are the ones who were blamed by a desperate attempt to coverup. If it was impossible to verify it then it would be useless to the FBI, and that we would have heard about.
I'd call that a "no match."
If only the 2020 election was carried out with such attention to detail. I'd say the scribbles on the mac shop wouldn't match anything legible as far as the layman is concerned. It does say "Hunter Biden" on it, which means at the very least someone created a forgery with the Mac shop's logo.
This is of course glossing over the fact that what you're doing right now is special pleading. No story or claim could survive such skepticism for people searching the internet. I've had disagreements with people who will just claim videos are deepfaked when they don't like what they show.
Well fine, I can't prove it's not deepfaked but I really doubt (and in most cases I knew) that these people don't apply the same evidentiary standards in all cases.
Not one source has verified that authenticity of the laptop. At least 17% of the emails appear to have genuinely come from Biden's own mail accounts but those have been copied and re-copied so many times that authentication is difficult- and the fact of many copies strongly suggest that Giuliani's hard drive is not the original.
What's the alternative hypothesis? If the emails are verified where did they come from? Email servers hacked (not actually that easy to do), but in that case they are still real. Which means that someone hacked Hunter's emails, forged records of them into a laptop, and gave the laptop to Giuliani.
For what purpose? To associate additional files that they placed on the laptop with Hunter?
Do you realize this excuse could be used for any hard drive evidence that wasn't ripped directly out of someone's hand? Simply admit to what can be independently verified and deny the rest.
Your statement that Giuliani's copy of the alleged Biden laptop has been "triple confirmed" is not true.
It is as true as it gets as far as digital information goes. You confirm that data is from a certain person by identifying information in the data that only that person would possess. There is no evidence that videos of Hunter Biden himself having sex-drug crazes before the story broke. Those videos could only have come from Hunter. A forgery is possible, but not a complete forgery.
The simplest explanation, the least "conspiratorial" is that the confirmed emails and confirmed videos came from Hunter's laptop and that his laptop was left at a Mac repair shop.
This isn't the sole piece of evidence of the conspiracy either. Joe's statements about what he did, Biden's unusual positions, meetings, the testimony of Bobulinski and Shokin.
Created:
Posted in:
Original:
You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, barring hyperbole against public figures (e.g., “all politicians should be shot”). Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.You may not engage in or promote criminal activity.You may not engage in or promote the sexual exploitation of minors.
Replace with:
You may not post content that would be illegal to post in the jurisdiction in which the hosting of this website occurs.
Reasons:
You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons
Threats made by one member directly to another member can be objectively evaluated, and are illegal in almost every jurisdiction (however if it turns out they are not in the case of this website's home jurisdiction the rule would have to be added).
However a prohibition on the promotion of violence against any person or persons is absurd. There is a well known name for the school of ethics which permits no violence and it is called "pacifism", to have a rule against even the promotion of violence is to in effect force all opinions expressed on this website to be pacifist ones. The degree to which this is not so is the degree to which moderators have failed to enforce this rule.
At the very least it is obvious after short thought that to advocate for anything to be illegal is to advocate that people are attacked for doing that thing. Therefore not only does this rule require pacifism but also anarchy as enforced opinions.
Moderators may have implicitly ignored this implication, but observe the consequence of the unwritten exception for "legal violence": https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7407/post-links/318679
This post was reported, reviewed, and allowed to stand.
What was the critical factor? Perhaps "judicial apparatus", the claim that the violence promoted would be carried out by some kind of "legitimate" authority.
Could I then have responded that "What really needs to happen is that after careful consideration a jury needs to sentence anyone who would shoot someone for sexual urges to be tortured, paralyzed, and left to be an object of mockery for the rest of their lives."?
Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.
The error here is simply a repeat of the previously described error with more emotive language. Almost every nation on earth arose out of violence, violence which at the time was called extremist, terrorist, or some other derogatory name. A liberal application of this rule would prohibit almost all forms of patriotism, nationalism, or support for historically violent international movements like communism.
The SPLC does not use objective criteria for any determinations they make. If there were objective criteria it would be appropriate to use those criteria in the rules (presuming the criteria were themselves appropriate) rather than to defer to a list.
You may not engage in or promote criminal activity.
Many organizations in the world define crimes, enforcement of many of the criminal statutes in the world is itself criminal in other parts of the world. For example someone executing a person for homosexual intercourse in Saudi Arabia (or whatever) would in fact be guilty of murder for performing the exact same actions in the United States of America.
The use of the word "promotion" is entirely nonsensical, arguing for the change of laws is perhaps the most significant thing that can be debated. To argue that something should be legal is to argue no one should be attacked for it. To argue that something should be illegal is to argue someone should be attacked for it (see point on violence above)
Does this site propose a circular cancellation system in which you must denounce a behavior until it is legal, but you may argue that it should be legal while simultaneously denouncing it? (and again legal in what country)
More than half the assertions on this site are subject to this rule as it stands, and any lack of moderation is due to the rule not being enforced. A rule against breathing is license for arbitrary punishment.
Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
"Unwarranted" is subjective.
In all cases "hate(ful)", "harassing", and "obscene" all need to be defined in a way such that they can be objectively evaluated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You can have sex without responsibility by the method you just outlined of saying "not it". Every male (excepting the ones who are ready to commit) will say that, thus all consequences will fall on the woman; and they should.The male has to state before the pregnancy exists to the female that if she gets pregnant, he won't take responsibility. If the female agrees to have sex with him nonetheless, the pregnancy is her fault. The guy in advance has to state that he won't take responsibility if she gets pregnant, and this has to be in writing as proof. Otherwise, it's assumed he didn't mention responsibility and therefore he would have to take care of the kid he chose to create.
People won't do that without motivation, but if there was a law which put your kidneys and fertility at risk everyone who is currently having sex not intended to procreate will simply keep these forms in their pack just like they do condoms and birth pills.
It will drive down unwanted pregnancies, by increasing attention to birth control; it will not significantly reduce sex. Your comments on virginity continue to have nothing to do with this alleged justification.
Drunk people choose to be drunk people before they are drunk, children do not choose to be young before they are young.Fair point, but drunk people still don't know any better when they are drunk, so having sex with a drunk person should be illegal.
With apparently the straightforward workaround of getting drunk yourself.
If the difference between rape and not-rape is choosing to impair your own judgement it is obviously in the self-interest of the sex-seeker to impair their own judgement.The sex seeker wouldn't impair their own judgement because nobody would want to have sex with them.
Oh no, that really isn't true. I don't want to ask your age [or maybe you live in a super religious isolated community], but it really is clear this is all theory to you . Besides which it's not a binary state, it's continuous; a factor I also mention below.
If you applied it to drunk driving, it would be better to be drunk and hit someone than to be sober because the sober driver is a murderer and the drunk driver is blameless. This obviously doesn't work out too well and that is why it is not policy.If you applied a similar situation to car accidents, an adult with a license driving a car would be viewed as worse than a child with no license driving a car. I don't agree with this statement, but it's the same logic. When your drunk, you deserve the same rights as a child.
You missed the point. Whether by direct action or taking your brain out of the equation a person is responsible. A voluntarily impaired person may lack malice required for the definition of many crimes but they certainly are not blameless.
I wouldn't group children in the same category of misinformed as drunk adults because the drunk adults still have some level of sexual awareness at least in terms of sex (just not enough to give consent). In my book, child + drunk adult = rape (drunk adult is the rapist).
"not enough to give consent" so it's a continuous variable this sexual awareness thing. Impairment is also continuous, every drug has a dosage.
Some drugs can reduce you to the state of near unconsciousness. Others can cause you to lose all awareness of agenda and answer questions truthfully because you can't think of a reason not to.
Along the axis of "sexual awareness" where X is the awareness of a child and Y is the awareness of a sober adult, there must exist some impairment that would render the adult's lessened awareness Y' <= X as unconsciousness is < X.
So too it follows that no two drunk people have the same awareness, someone is always more impaired. Thus your claim of "not rape" if they are both drunk is a simplification. It would be "not very much rape".
If this doesn't all strike you as so absurd as to make you abandon the theory entirely let me point out explicitly that:
1) No such continuous variable "sexual awareness" can be defined in any measurable way, at least not in our lifetime. It isn't science or sound logic, it isn't even a guess, it's pure imagination.
2) The concept is useless on top of being baseless, it informs nothing that is not better understood by alternative concepts.
3) You say "sexual awareness" but it is a wider concept you allude to. The drunk driver has impaired physics awareness, yet the notion that drunk drivers are no longer responsible for their actions is itself another ad absurdum.
You can't have it both ways, it can't be different categories and yet refer to quantized responsibility in reference to a common continuous variable.
In reality drunk people can consent. When they reach for a beer that is consent to drink a beer. It is not consent in their right mind, but it is consent. The only time a creature with discernible will cannot consent is when they are unconscious or otherwise unable to communicate or act.
Created:
People who I will definitely call out if they ever say something like "that's whataboutism":
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Tell me you didn't read the threat without telling me you didn't read the thread...
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It’s just that some people believe only those who look like them and/or agree with them get to partake in it, otherwise it’s illegitimate.
<sarcasm> Others believe it's not "real" democracy if one person originates multiple ballots... the bigots. </sarcasm>
Edit: I forgot the sarcasm tags the first time. I have to be careful about the special needs around here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
but you could also simply declare that you had no responsibility and proceed to donate sperm in such a way as to terminate your virginity.Donating your sperm doesn't cause you to lose your virginity anymore than jerking off does. Having sex is what causes you to lose your virginity. If you sell your sperm, the sperm is someone else's responsibility now, not yours.
You can have sex without responsibility by the method you just outlined of saying "not it". Every male (excepting the ones who are ready to commit) will say that, thus all consequences will fall on the woman; and they should.
They do don't they, but there is no moral case for future crime. If the crime is murdering a baby; that is what can be punished. All actions risking that will be discouraged by that punishment.A drunk person is like a child; they can't consent to sex. If 2 10 year olds had sex together, you don't punish them, but you tell them not to do it again. If 2 drunk people are having sex, you are supposed to prevent them from having sex (and it's more dangerous when drunk people have sex because of pregnancy and birth control isn't always taken, plus the birth control might mix with the alcohoul in a bad way). If a sober person has sex with a drunk person or an adult has sex with a 10 year old, the sober person and the adult are rapists and they need to be killed for the rape.
Fascinating theory, a few problems though. Drunk people choose to be drunk people before they are drunk, children do not choose to be young before they are young.
Your postulation allows for the perfect crime and thus subsidizes immoral or impractical actions. If the difference between rape and not-rape is choosing to impair your own judgement it is obviously in the self-interest of the sex-seeker to impair their own judgement.
If you applied it to drunk driving, it would be better to be drunk and hit someone than to be sober because the sober driver is a murderer and the drunk driver is blameless. This obviously doesn't work out too well and that is why it is not policy.
If on the other hand we consistently applied a principle of risk-assessment being part of the moral responsibility a person who deliberately impairs themselves does not escape responsibility in the slightest. They may behave recklessly while impaired but they behaved recklessly while not-impaired in choosing to become impaired.
Your theory has another inconsistency:
Sober adult + sober adult = not rape
Sober adult + drunk adult = rape
drunk adult + drunk adult = not rape
child + child = not rape
child + sober adult = rape
child + drunk adult = ?
In your simplistic and flawed theory drunk people are incapable of consent as are children, If we replace every "child" and "drunk adult" with "misinformed" and every "sober adult" with "informed" we get:
informed + informed = not rape
informed + misinformed = rape
misinformed + misinformed = not rape
misinformed + misinformed = not rape
misinformed + informed = rape
misinformed + misinformed = ?
See the pattern? The same information/competency/whatever status means not-rape. Different information status means rape. The last example, drunk adult + child would then be "not rape".
Now you could try to patch and bandaid this theory with a bunch of arbitrary assertions but that's not what truth looks like. It's simply a flawed theory.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
-->@oromagiThe three water-damaged unclaimed laptops that a Delaware Mac repair shop (illegally) turned over to Giuliani in October 2020 who then turned these over to the FBI office in Baltimore?That one, it's the one that has now been triple confirmed (by two media orgs and people at the DOJ)Let's get all three of those citations, please.
First Media Organization: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/
DOJ: A good summary with lots of citations, links, and screenshots (amazing concept): https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-doj-fbi-confirm-hunter-biden-laptop-is-not-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign, Note that the next link also confirms DOJ activity via subpoena.
Second Media Organization: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-bill-investigation.html - "The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."
More stuff I found while searching for the citations:
Images of receipts in the repair shop billed to "Hunter Biden": www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-emails-documents-alleged-signature-fbi-paperwork
I don't trust snopes at all, but you might https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hunter-biden-laptop-could-be-his/, also I remember this interview. Classic non-committal language so you don't get caught in a lie but can still mitigate.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Bones
I have the same question as pie, and why do you think Gaetz doesn't know what's on there? The question is why nobody has published it yet. The only reason I can think of is that an unredacted hard-drive dump includes matters of national security or there is media that is illegal to possess (child porn).
There have been claims that the emails alone were available on the web but I haven't seen a link. Just people talking about it and expired links and such:
They also claim:
He [Bannon associate] has removed the porn and kiddie pics so there’s no danger of downloading anything questionable.
Now it's possible that everyone who has gotten the files has either decided to not share them or they are really bad at using the many clandestine anonymous tools for sharing files.
It's also possible this is fake news, i.e. only the NY post, FBI, and now NY times and Gaetz have actually looked at the contents. All these other people claiming to have it were just cashing in for clicks like those treacherous fools Sydney Powell and Lin Wood. You can count on the QAnon crowd to assume child porn is on every democrat's laptop. They have a similar cognitive malfunction to Incel-chud.
Of course I'm going to have to eat my words if there is actually child porn on Hunter's laptop, but there is no way two newspapers could keep that to themselves for more than 20 seconds.
So my money is on some national security law potentially being used against anyone who releases the whole thing to the public because Hunter was talking to agents of the federal government to arrange the favors and route the money.
Created:
“I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record of this committee, content from, files from and copies from the Hunter Biden laptop,” Gaetz said.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Of course you aren't mistaken, apparently it takes well above average IQ to think of such things these days. I should have been a prepper...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the guy said in advance, "If I have sex with you and you get pregnant, I am not paying child support and I don't want to raise the kid" and the female agrees to have sex with him nonetheless, then I wouldn't hold the man guilty and I would hold the woman guilty. This is what happens with sperm donors. If a guy on the other hand doesn't claim whether he will take care of the kid or claims he's going to, then I would hold the guy responsible because it's implied that he will take care of the pregnant female and her kid.
So you're just saying the default is responsibility... but when you volunteered the reason why you wanted to stay a virgin you said to avoid this responsibility. Not only could you use birth prevention techniques, not only could you engage in non-procreative acts only, but you could also simply declare that you had no responsibility and proceed to donate sperm in such a way as to terminate your virginity.
It does not all fit together.
Also, drunk people should be banned from sex because people do stupid stuff when they are drunk.
They do don't they, but there is no moral case for future crime. If the crime is murdering a baby; that is what can be punished. All actions risking that will be discouraged by that punishment. It is not for others to assess such risks.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My feelings on ad hominem are fairly clear, I point them out, then ignore them, and take the potential respect for the originator down a peg.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
What is a %racist even supposed to mean?I don't really believe that Athias is 18% more racist than chud or even that you can be 18% more racist than somebody else in some quantifiable way.
Sanity detected, *sigh*
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The three water-damaged unclaimed laptops that a Delaware Mac repair shop (illegally) turned over to Giuliani in October 2020 who then turned these over to the FBI office in Baltimore?
That one, it's the one that has now been triple confirmed (by two media orgs and people at the DOJ)
Why are we supposed to care?
The shirtless drug pictures don't matter except to support authenticity. The correspondence building a strong case for organized crime selling US foreign policy for personal wealth do matter.
The corrupt activity of the Biden family (definitely including the big guy) caused corruption in the Ukrainian government itself (firing Viktor Shokin for instance), could be linked to the insurrection in Ukraine, and the likely puppet status of Ukraine.
That insurrection, that corruption, and now bio-labs actually linked to Biden (I dismissed that as Russian propaganda until it was confirmed) are all major elements in the evolving Russian casus belli.
The suppression of this story likely had a significant impact on the so called 2020 election. Before that Trumps attempt to uncover these plots led to his first baseless impeachment. Biden was also involved in the first state involved framing that was intended to be used to impeach him (the prostitute peeing Russia collusion hoax).
So in summation we should care because there is obviously a conspiracy here that has attempted to destroy one US president, severely harmed the democracy in the USA and Ukraine, and contributed to causing a war which has displaced millions and killed thousands.
I think that counts as significant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How is it that joe-average gets his kidney cut out if he produces a child and the woman decides against his will to have an abortion but you get to sell your swimmers with no risk to your kidneys?Because the male that had sex with her chose to take the risk for pregnancy by having sex, and given that abortion results in a kid dying, the kid's existence is their fault. I'm not forcing anyone to take my sperm, but people want my sperm, so I'm happy to make money off of it. If they don't use my sperm, they will use someone else's. I'm not forcing them to have a kid, they chose to do that.
You don't seem to realize every differentiating point you just tried to make is symmetric:
Because the male that had sex with her chose to take the risk for pregnancy by having sex, and given that abortion results in a kid dying, the kid's existence is their fault
Because you choose to take the risk for pregnancy by giving sperm, the kid's existence is your fault... symmetric
[out of order] If they don't use my sperm, they will use someone else's.
If they don't have sex with you, they will have sex with someone else. Symmetric.
I'm not forcing anyone to take my sperm, but people want my sperm, so I'm happy to make money off of it....I'm not forcing them to have a kid, they chose to do that.
What you still don't seem to understand is that this is equally true of consensual sex. The consensual there means "not forced".
Every male in the universe (with a properly functioning sex drive) would like nothing better than to be paid to impregnate females so I'm not surprised you would be happy but being paid hardly improves the moral situation you seemed so certain of.
You are taking the exact same risk by donating sperm. Someone could make a kid with that sperm and you are risking that they will do so and then kill the kid.
Sperm donors store sperm in a bank because people feel awkward about having sex with strangers, especially in the light of vows of monogamy, but if that taboo didn't exist sperm donors would simply deliver the goods directly. It's way cheaper than keeping a bunch of sterile lab equipment, techs, and freezers running.
Would you still claim there is a meaningful difference then? When exactly does your responsibility evaporate? What factor saves your kidney?
Created:
Isn't that the point of the whole website not just one thread?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You see, that's the funny part- I do. In a democracy, everyone else and I have the right to make damn near any choice for anyone.Prove it.How about 'no'. That is literally what a democracy is. Citizens have the right to vote. They vote for people that make laws. Laws restrict what you can do.
Then I deny the existence of such a right.
I see an appeal to force, nothing more. Your unsigned social contracts and your legal fictions won't do a single thing to convince me to obey. The bullets are doing all the convincing. Bullets obey many masters. If you're fine with that there is nothing else to say.I'm not making any appeals. I'm simply explaining how the system here in America works.
No you're dodging the issue by jumping across the is-ought chasm. I know what rights and duties the various governments who claim lordship over me claim I have. I know they will attack me if I assert rights they do not recognize or fail to carry out duties they demand.
That was never in contention. What was in contention was whether those claims were morally correct.
What you're referring to is negative freedom- what people can't do to you. However, the addition of additional choices is freedom. School choice legislation is freedom- giving parents more power over the destiny of their children. You seem to be suggesting that believe these things are rights. They are not, they are expansions of freedom.
Those examples are in one sense of the word freedom, but not political freedom. Not the freedom that may be demanded from others.
The kind of freedom described by greater-than-natural choices is not a right. If it requires the action or property of other moral actors it is a privilege. If it requires the violation of laws of physics it requires the capacity for self-delusion.
No government deserves to exist in of itself. There is no coherent objective moral concept "sovereignty".Not much of what you said was wildly incorrect, but this confuses me. Sovereignty isn't a moral concept. It is something people desire and take for themselves because they want power over their destiny. It isn't any crazier than that.
If sovereignty isn't a moral concept then my statement is true. This also implies that anyone who justifies their actions with "sovereignty" have failed to justify their actions, if you understand that we are in agreement on the word.
Think of any ex-Colonial country. South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), the Ivory Coast countries, etc. Their lives are objectively worse post-colonization, yet they in many cases used violence to achieve the power to govern themselves. They would rather be worse off, in fact, than to be ruled by others and live better. We didn't like the fact that people who didn't listen to us and who had fairly little in common with us were telling us what to do, so we killed their soldiers and economically drained them until they left us alone.
People are easily convinced that someone is stealing from them because someone is always stealing from them. The desire for dignity can easily be invested in ephemeral constructs like the tribe. The quest for the emancipation of a collective and the creation of a "sovereign nation" to be the incarnation of the collective is a perversion of the quest for liberty. It is perverse because it merely recreates the evil on a smaller scale.
Every nation seeking and gaining independence including the USA has gone on to commit the very oppression that justified their formation.
One needs only follow the logic to its inevitable conclusion to see why this happens. If colonies deserve to be independent why not counties? If counties why not towns? If towns why not households? If houses why not individuals?
It is man himself (the individual) whom exists, whom has a mind, who can be guilty, who can be virtuous, who can make promises, who can give consent or withhold it. The individual is the only moral actor. All others are shadows projected off him, all collectivized notions of morality are cults worshiping at the idol of a god that does not exist.
[1] All the prosperity and moral superiority of systems like the unofficial American Social Contract (see declaration of independence and constitution) is wholly owed to the unprecedented degree with which they mirrored that truth of individual moral calculus.
If you're just going to ignore the important bits I'll run out of things to say fairly quickly. I didn't just assert it, I proved it. "rules and structure alter the course of the choices we make" has no relevance to my derivation whatsoever. It's just hand waving.You can say you proved things all you wish, that doesn't make it true.
Nor does denying it make it false.
You think that having rules is tyranny.
I did not say that. I think having rules must follow one of two patterns or else it is tyranny:
A) The rule is an objective universal moral or the derivative application thereof
B) The rule was consented to
(A) should be called laws, and (B) should be called regulations as those words most closely resemble the sum of informal understanding.
Not at all- it is called having standards.
You may call it whatever you wish, but a rose by any other name....
Depends on who you ask.I was asking you.Being a conservative means believing in order above freedom.
Then being a conservative means being evil. It also means fighting for the redcoats. If you are a conservative by that definition you are a traitor to the ideals of the United States of America as well as being ignorant of the only objective universal moral understanding possible.
It is being part of a long tradition and people. American conservatism specifically has some roots to the Constitution and founding of the country, but those aren't everything.
The founding of the country has absolutely nothing to do with "order above freedom", you postulate the existence of truly deluded people (American conservatives) who managed to twist a founding myth 180 degrees from it's original form in spite of the clear written evidence to the contrary.
I don't accept your definition to be the commonly understood one mind you, many people call themselves conservative because they believe they are conserving the ideals and vision of the founders. A vision of personal liberty, rationality, and government resistant to tyrannous devolution. It is a vision of order for the sake of freedom.
You can't value A for the sake of B and then value A over B. Imagine valuing a warm house for the sake of the baby inside, and then saying you value the warm house over the baby. If you will sacrifice the baby to keep the warm house you value the house more than the baby. If you will sacrifice the warm house to save the baby you value the baby more than the house.
So too: If you sacrifice freedom to keep order, you value order more than freedom. If you sacrifice order to keep freedom, you value freedom more than order.
I am reminded of a similar 180 degree inversion from founding myth to justification: The warrior christian, the crusader. They fought and died in the name of a man who wouldn't even tolerate an ear being cut off to save his life. Jesus of Nazareth was pacifism in a portrait, only the Siddhartha is in the same ball park. The crusaders didn't even have the self-awareness to doctor the gospels to make it more compatible (such as say Islamic scripture which is full of 'justified' violence).
The delusion man is capable of....
I suppose you think the Founding of this nation was a bunch of tyrants taking over because they limited the liberty for people to get divorces and bugger each other, yes?
They were tyrants in many ways, but they were not worse tyrants than those who came before. In their admission that sovereignty and government are tools not sacred structures and end unto themselves, in their declaration of ideals, in their intentional decentralization and anti-tyranny measures they were for a time the most moral power on earth.
I pre-read your post and this question is why I included [1] above.
The good does not excuse the bad. The bad does not erase the good:
Attacking a man for any reason less than the violation of rights, such as victimless crimes, such as buggery is evil.
Insofar as marriage is a contract and divorce is a breach of contract, preventing it or mitigating its exit is not evil.
They also had some pretty serious sins of omission. As a government claiming ultimate legal authority the responsibility to defend the right to liberty in all of their claimed territory fell on them entirely. They failed hundreds of thousands of slaves for many long years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
A notable majority of these questions start with "Is it okay to..." I think "it's okay" for one to think whatever one wants. I only disagreed with conclusions which implicated harm and coercion.
It's often the case with these political quizzes that they assume the dichotomies manufactured by the maker instead of the dichotomies implied by logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
When people hear only what they want to hear it's called an echo chamber. It is a place for fools, cowards, and tyrants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Many people say dogs don't pass the mirror test, tells you what kind of geniuses call themselves animal psychologists. As for your stomach, try some tums and if those don't work maybe some introspection because you wouldn't have puppies if dogs didn't fuck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That sounds false. I'm going to need a source on both those claims if you want me to accept them.90% of the Human Population Carries the Herpes Virus (quickrxrefill.com) is the herpes cite.CDC estimates 1 in 5 people in the U.S. have a sexually transmitted infection | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC is the cite for STIs in general.
Shady site trying to sell Herpes drugs 1/10. CDC 8/10 (unless they're trying to sell STI vaccines :o). Actual source of CDC: https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2021/04000/Sexually_Transmitted_Infections_Among_US_Women_and.2.aspx
I read over it briefly and thought "what about overlap" and lo and behold:
First, our estimates of total prevalence and incidence across all STIs overestimate the number of people with a prevalent or incident infection in 2018 due to the possibility of coinfections and the inability to estimate the level of coinfection.
Still I have learned something, so thank you; the spread of HPV is way way worse than I thought it was. I remember eight years ago HPV was only becoming an issue in rural south america. People tried to argue that it was associated with extra-sapiens activity. Now clearly not a requirement (nor could anyone reasonably versed in biology have expected it would be).
All of that not withstanding, every one of these diseases can be detected. Awkward though it may be, you can check beforehand.
I don't even know why blowjobs feel good.It's got to be a troll.Not accurate. I genuinely don't know why someone would want a blowjob. They can wash their dick off in warm water if they wanted to. I perfer cold water though.
.... it's not a cleaning procedure.
How about when you said you wanted to keep your system working to sell sperm? How is it that joe-average gets his kidney cut out if he produces a child and the woman decides against his will to have an abortion but you get to sell your swimmers with no risk to your kidneys?
What if somebody buys your sperm, gets pregnant (because there aren't many other uses for sperm), and then has an abortion. No moral fault on you in that case because you were paid?.... doesn't really follow.
Created:
Posted in:
[RationalMadman:] Nope, you asked to have people PM you and assist you with doxxing him [ADOL] based on a notion that he is a closet pedo.[Incel-chud:] He pretty openly admits he is, but avoids saying the actual words.
= X, also ~X.
It's just not the sort of thing someone with a living ego can understand, but lucky you not being tied down by petty concepts like "contradiction".
Created:
Posted in:
I can't keep up, frankly it's not even that interesting a puzzle. RationalMadman I don't know why you tagged me in that post. I don't know who Wylted is supposed to be. I don't see the quoted text in this thread (maybe deleted). Yea so nobody go "remember when" about this whole mess I haven't a clue. Like I said a significant ratio of you people seem to be crazy.
Created:
-->
@thett3
There is an effort to archive by third parties.
Created: