Total posts: 3,192
So may I operate under the presumption that as far as you're concerned, "I barely skimmed the references I've submitted, and only provided them to this forum's purview because I saw the titles on my newsfeed"?
Created:
Can you explain your references in your own words, and/or explain the trends conveyed in those statistical models? How have you substantiated the integrity of their results? Let's just state that the data analyst in me is intrigued, and curious to find out how well you understand the information you've submitted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, thank you for the flowers.
All communists get them.
Hope you enjoy your 95% anarchy life then
I'd prefer 100%.
Well, see? Communism is not so bad since it lets you have 95% of anarchy.
That's not a product of Communism. It's a product of neither being enslaved nor being subject to a police state... yet.
What other system would give you that much anarchy?
Well, anarchy would give one more. That's obvious, isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
you highlight that forcibly losing one's autonomy is what causes fear, and it is this fear that brings forth PTSD?
I would imagine so.
As far as generalizations are concerned, I would prefer evidence, but if we lack it, personal experience is a worthy substitute. In essence, I have you noticed this to cause PTSD in men?
In men? I don't have the necessary sample size to make such a generalization. But from personal experience, yes, I have witnessed individuals subjected to trauma as a result of having one's autonomy undermined.
if we could identify the source of trauma in war veterans than perhaps associate it with the trauma of rape, we might find a more solid conclusion.
The issue with the attempt to create a "solid conclusion" is the attempt to elide individual evaluation. In order to establish a control, one would have to demonstrate that the cause and the result are reproducible. And when it comes to one's autonomy; one's body; one's personal space for that matter, the causes and results aren't so clearly defined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Here is a quote that was shown to me just the other day: "Knowledge hinders imagination"
Is that Einstein?
It seems to denote that imagination is only useful in gaining knowledge, since once you have knowledge, you have less imagination.
Or that one's epistemological metrics are too restrictive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Hey, anarchy is cool too.
Not as "cool" as communism, and thankfully so. I wouldn't want any political philosophy to which I subscribe be subject to your definition of "cool."
Its just that right now we have Communism.
Through coercion, murder, theft, manipulation, etc. Allow me to give you your flowers.
Well, you can still practice your anarchy in private.
Unless you're a public servant, 95% of your life already is anarchy.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you think it is possible for people to act without self-interest, such as out of morals, ethics, or otherwise?
Doesn't one embrace morals and ethics because of self-interest? That is to maximize one's own utility at little cost?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If America was founded by atheists and our age of consent was 16, it wouldn't be hypocrisy. But since our country was founded by Christians and our age of consent is higher,
America was founded by Witches and Wizards, a.k.a. Free Masons. Christianity is just being perverted and used as a cover.
it is hypocrisy because those Christians worship a pedophille.
Again, substantiate that God is a pedophile.
Israel never reproduced. It is a piece of land.
I did not intend to insinuate that that Israel--the land itself--birthed or sired her. Only that she was a product of its culture.
What's the relevance?
Because she was a child of Israel, which means she knew Jesus would be born from her line or other descendants of David, including Joseph.
Jesus is descended from a rape victim.
Substantiate that Mary was raped.
I really wish those who reference links would take the time to read their sources.
While unproven, some apocryphal accounts state that at the time of her betrothal to Joseph, Mary was 12–14 years old.[1] Her age during her pregnancy has varied up to 17 in apochyphal sources.[105][106] In a large part, apocryphal texts are historically unreliable.[107] According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary technically could have been betrothed at about 12,[108] but most Jewish women in Palestine of her time married during their late teens or early twenties.[109]
Their idea that the age of consent should be reduced. The more anti status quo and the more despised your position is by most of society, the more the people who have those views have to think about those views. It's why a Trump supporter in Manhattan can come up with better arguments for Trump than a Trump supporter in Alabama; they've thought of those views more throughout their lives.
I suppose I've thought about my positions for ages then. *Which happens to be true.* But I wouldn't attest that to my necessarily being "anti status quo."
So then if you think children can consent,
Not all children can consent. At a certain point it doesn't matter--since they can't communicate assent or dissent, then everything done to or with them is done without consent.
what about drunk people? Can they consent?
Depends. But unless forcibly inebriated, the responsibility for drunken decisions befalls those who choose to get drunk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Why is a voluntary act fine, but the same act unvoluntary is traumatic?
The answer is quite obvious isn't it? Just in the mere way you juxtaposed "voluntary" and "involuntary" provides insight. We have to examine the meaning of voluntary and involuntary association. Voluntary association is mutually beneficial, while involuntary association benefits an aggressor. The body -- the physical manifestation of one's self is both the container and shield of the self. To lose control of the body is to lose control of the self. To lose control of the body is to lose control of one's primary and final protection. Without some sense of protection, fear takes over. Fear is the basis for trauma.
Additionally, do only women experience this,
No.
do they experience it more than men, or do they experience this equally?
It's incredibly difficult to substantiate generalizations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
What does this quote mean to you, and how has it impacted your actions?
I wouldn't necessarily state that it has impacted my actions. The meaning of the quote has more of a spiritual resonance. That one can be immortalized through one's spirit, not necessarily through one's flesh.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Could you explain the reasoning behind your response of "No?"
Because "interest" is inextricably linked to the self. Because "experience" "perception" and "perspective" is inextricably linked to the self. Can one do something for someone without little to no concern for the self? No, because the act itself is motivated and carried out as a result of one's interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I've always loved this quote from The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway,
“But man is not made for defeat… A man can be destroyed but not defeated.”
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
We will cover the following questions to get started:Can humans truly act selflessly?Does anyone truly act selflessly?Should anyone truly act selflessly?
1. No.
2. No.
3. It's not a matter of "should." They can't. Every action one takes is necessarily subject to one's own evaluation. Performing an act to one's own benefit doesn't necessarily exclude the benefit of others. Social interaction is predicated on the nexus of maximizing one's own utility while minimizing the suffering of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
We will cover the following questions to get started:Why is it that women can endure sex, but rape of an equal experience is traumatizing?Is the source of trauma embedded in fully recognizing one's helplessness?Is the past determined by our perspective, and the same experience if viewed positive or negative will be such an experience?
1. Why is it that (a) woman can endure giving gifts, but traumatized when being robbed? Why is that (a) woman can endure selling her labor in the labor market, but traumatized when being enslaved?
2. I would imagine that's part of it.
3. I suppose.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The utility one finds in one's, for lack of a better term, "method" of perspective is ultimately subject to individual discretion. I wouldn't state one is "better" than the other. Personally, I think it's all dependent on circumstance. There are certain circumstance where being emotional is appropriate. Though I do not maintain this as it concerns the subjects of debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Politicians by virtue of their office are scumbags and liars. The question proposed is akin to asking, "who's one favorite con-artist?" I suppose that can still be answered, especially if they're good at their craft. But currently serving, no--politicians today are more incompetent than ever.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
No, it is most certainly impossible to view the world independent of personal perspective or bias. We are subjects of being and view everything through our perspective of the world. However, it is possible to strive towards viewing the world objectively, such as the Buddha, finding inner peace and self-detachment.
In other words, strive towards an impossible end?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
"Independent of personal perspective or bias."Is this possible?How can we achieve a state of independence from ourselves and our independent functional processes.
Well asked. Perhaps this will be remembered when propositions of "external reality" are posited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
In NY, the age of consent is 18; in CT, it's 16.
In New York, the age of consent is 17.
They both vote blue by comparable margins, but their age of consent is about as different as you can be by the standards of the US.
Because the statutory division known as age of consent is arbitrary.
Do we let the whole country decide the age of consent, the individual states, the individual counties, the voting districts (which change in area with time because people move), the precincts, the individual people (which would basically mean there would be no age of consent...)
Let the individuals decide. When and how one behaves one's own body should not be subject to public referendum.
But people disagree on the age of consent.
Because the statutory division known as age of consent is arbitrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Every state in the US has an age of consent at least 16.
I know. But that isn't necessarily because of Christians. I would state that it's more a coalition of different political factions which included so-called Christian denominations (namely Roman Catholic women.)
He got her pregnant, and the fear of pregnancy is why women tend to not be as sex positive as men are.
Gabriel told Mary that she will conceive a son who she will name Jesus. There's no indication that Mary acquiesced; She accepted because she was a child of Israel. Jesus is a descendant of David, as were both his parents Joseph and Mary, and his siblings. Again, I ask: which Bible/Torah/Qu'Ran have you read?
But I don't see how someone can be against pedophilia and worship a pedophile.
Substantiate that God has a sexual attraction and/or has had sexual contact with children ages under 11. Note Mary's age isn't explicitly mentioned.
Flat earthers thought more about the shape of the earth than regular people did; so flat earthers would make better arguments, even if those arguments are wrong.
I'm just trying to understand the analogous argument you're attempting. Pro-pedophilia individuals tend to be more versed or educated in what?
Your position is that children can't consent (I would assume), which was one of my options.
That's not my position at all. Only that I understand the position put forth by Best.Korea even if it's ultimately hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you consider a hegemonic government's practice of theft, coercion, and the exploitation of labor and resources through duress, as "winning," then congratulations. I'll leave you to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You already conceded that USA, strongest country in history of Earth, is Communist.
And therefore it's being Communist is the cause of your impression of "Strength"?
Eh, tomato, tomahto.
Not really. Your argument played on a prejudice against the validity of a rich man's wealth. Why are you attempting to circumvent?
Not sure what kind of moral stance is that, but from my moral stance,
A moral stance which condemns coercion.
being rich is theft
You haven't been able to substantiate this thus far.
and Communism helps children with food and education,
More sophistry.
so Communism wins there too.
Another trivially metaphorical made-up contest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sorry, I dont know what that means.
noun: sophistry
- the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
2. subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.
Yet the meaning remains unrefuted. So until you refute the meaning,
I bear no onus to refute a description you haven't substantiated. I don't entertain argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance.)
as opposed to just complaining about labels,
Lexicon is important in communication.
maybe then capitalism will win. Until then, Communism wins.
Win what? A trivially metaphorical contest you just made up to bolster the appeal of Communism, a description for which you have butchered with sophistic statements?
Oh so you went from "its not a free banana for me" to "its an immoral banana for me".
No, it went from "it's not a free banana" to "it's not a free banana, and my suggestion that it's not free is RELEVANT because of my moral stance against the nature of its procurement."
Yes, you can maintain that its immoral to steal the rich man's money
I do maintain that. But it's not only rich men's money which is being stolen.
and give it for children's education or for food for starving children.
More sophistry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The definition is used for meaning.
Your definition is used for sophistry. I suppose there is some "meaning" to that.
changing definition still doesnt change the meaning and still doesnt refute the argument.
Refuting the premises, refutes the illogical extension of said premises. Your description of Communism isn't accurate, and therefore any extension of an inaccurate description donning the moniker, "Communism" will also be inaccurate. Use an accurate description, or apply a different term to that which holds meaning for you, and we can discontinue this dispute.
You already conceded that USA, China, Russia... are all Communist countries.
I didn't have to concede that; I never denied it.
Irrelevant to you, since you got banana for free, without paying for it. Lucky you
It is relevant to me if I maintain that coercing another's labor or stealing one's property or fruits of one's labor--literally--is fundamentally immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes.
So you have abandoned that Communism facilitates individual sovereignty? Honesty is good.
I am glad you concede that the definition you used was irrelevant to anything I said,
It wasn't irrelevant.
since it is not the definition I use and its meaning has nothing to do with what I am saying.
Your definition was inaccurate.
More coercive, better military, more sustainable, historically proven to work... take your pick.
I pick "more coercive" since it's the only one on your itemized list that has been substantiated.
Sure there is. If I give you a banana, you got a banana for free, since you didnt pay for it. Thats Communism.
And how was the procurement of this banana financed?
Yes.BecauseCommunism =/= freedomCommunism = 💪💪💪💪
So you have abandoned that Communism facilitates individual freedom. Honesty is (still) good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
On one hand, most Americans are hypocrites on the age of consent (if they are Christain).
They don't have to be Christian. The disparate ages of consent among states would indicate that.
Me: Don't you worship a God that had sex with a 13 year old girl (Mary)?
God didn't have sex with Mary. Which Bible/Torah/Qu'ran have you read?
I mean, pedophilia or atheism, you decide bud.
Are those really the only options?
But also if young people are allowed to legally consent to sex (Korea was the first person I met that defended pedophillia, so it's a new view to me and I kinda have to play Devils Advocate because when virtually everybody agrees with you, you don't come up with as good of arguments as someone that is in the ideological minority because the ideological minority thinks about the majority's positions way more than the other way around).
I don't think this is necessarily true, though it's not without some merit in isolated instances.
A flat earther can make better arguments justifying a flat earth than a random person that thinks the earth is spherical because the flat earther thought about their position way more. I believe the earth is spherical, but I don't think I could win a debate with a flat earther on the earth's shape because they've thought their position on this issue through much more than I could. The same thing would apply for pro pedophilia people vs your typical anti pedophilia person.
What?!
Korea's argument: Children can consent.Me response: What about drunk people? Can they consent?His response: No; drunk people might regret the sex they have.I don't think this is a good response.
Neither do I.
So I don't think the fear of sexual regret is a good enough reason to charge someone with rape.
Is it your position, then, that emotional ramifications as a consequence of coitus does not substantiate a predatory, and most important, coercive element in the determination of rape? I agree.
So either drunk people can consent (not Korea's position if I understand it correctly) or children can't consent (not Korea's position if I understand it correctly), or there is some other reason why drunk people can't consent but children can with Korea's logic.
If I were to take a guess, I suppose that the position maintains that the "diminished reasoning" as a result of inebriation nullifies valid consent. Of course, this is indeed hypocritical when one can easily put forth that children have "diminished reasoning" as a result of their physical and emotional immaturity. Just to point out: I maintain neither.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So Communism wins.
While the individual and his/her liberty loses.
Hopefully? You are such a capitalist.
Indeed.
Errr wrong. Thats not my definition.
Never stated that it was your definition. I adjusted your response to reflect a more accurate description.
Also, Capitalism is undermined by historical practice
No, it hasn't.
since all strong countries are Communist,
Don't you mean "more coercive"?
such as Canada(free healthcare).
There's no such thing as "free" health care.
So Communism wins again.
At the expense of the individual and his/her liberty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Communism and fascism would be identical if it were not for the concept of a property deed.I would counter and say we live in a quasi-fascist state, and not a quasi-communist state...
The two aren't mutually exclusive (a la the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.) I take no issue maintaining that the U.S. has been both a quasi-communist and a fascist state for a better part of a century.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Original debate:What side do you think won the debate?
The so-called "Black" conservatives made better arguments. Conservatives in general, at least in my opinion, tend to make better arguments in juxtaposition to liberals as it concerns political discourse and forums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's so funny that Marxists feverishly claim that the worker should keep what he produces, yet is all on board for 40% taxation....
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, I guess Communism in USA is doomed.
Unfortunately, this isn't true.
Its back to more of free market economy.
The United States has never employed a "free market economy." The United States has been a quasi-communist state for over a century.
How many people will lose healthcare because of Trump?
Do you mean subsidized health-care insurance? Hopefully, many.
I am not a marxist. I am a Communist.
Tomato, Tom-AH-to.
Also, the definition of Communism is government providing food, water, education, housing and healthcare to all citizens so that all citizens and all children have same chance and arent left out by the system.
The definition of Communism is the state's controlling and coercing the means of production and the dissemination of goods and services. Your specious description is undermined by historical practice.
So yes, democracy is the path to Communism. Get used to it.
Can't argue against that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The suggestion that property is theft is a contradiction, since theft necessarily implies "property."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@Best.Korea
Do either of you have an actual argument? Or is it your sole intention to display how well the both of you emote? If if's the latter, please allow me the courtesy of checking out.
If however you intend to argue the subject, then let's argue the subject. I've debated physicians (even within my own family) and microbiologists--those presumably "more educated" on the subject--about COVID, and even in our disagreement they easily avoided fits and boorish displays. Let your argument do the talking, in other words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, so you mean it doesn't matter if masks don't work, since we got busted on that in 1918.... But if you take this shot, you don't need to worry that the masks don't work....
Haha!
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I just said I don't know why he does it.
You stated that you don't know the reason he does the work of a Korean Messianic Conspiracy. So I am asking: are you under the impression that Greyparrot is indirectly part of said conspiracy?
You still have not learned that argumentum ad hominem must be irrelevant to argument to count as fallacy?
Are you under the misconception that I've never understood that which constitutes an ad hominem fallacy?
Greyparrot's long history of dodging debate
Irrelevant.
while whispering false words of fear and hatred into the ears of the young and gullible is 100% relevant to the injury his post here and ten thousand others like it do to a nation founded on liberty and equality.
Then do your due diligence in establishing this alleged falsehood, or hold Greyparrot responsible for his alleged falsehoods by rigorously scrutinizing his claims you allege are false. Characterizing him as a "worm tongue," "soulless puppet," and "asshole" substantiates no relevance to the subject at hand, and does no more or less than express your personal feelings. Even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, and buy that your characterizations have relevance, then the only relevance they serve is an attempt to expose Greyparrot's motivations for allegedly spreading lies. Of course, this is ultimately defeated by the fact that, YOU'RE NOT A MIND READER, OROMAGI. And the allusion to Gandalf the White doesn't help toward that effect.
TREASON is "the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance." By the general definition, Trump's treasons are too numerous to list or disute. Once you are president, even the little shit like claiming that his "authority is total" or claiming that Mexican born judges can't be impartial or misreporting the path of hurricane to cover up a minor verbal error is totally treason. He swore a sacred oath to uphold the authority of the people as total, to uphold the justice system, to uphold the people's emergency preparedness but he easily, corruptly, dangerously, undermined the system ltterally thousands times and usually for the basest of motives: greed, pride, envy. Nobody denies these treasons, least of all Trump who would happily take a piss in Lady Liberty's mouth for a dollar while crying Free Speech.In America, the constitutional defintion of treason is far more limited.
- Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The full constitutional definition of Treason is as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Is there a reason this one does not suffice?
Trump has adhered to that great enemy Putin longer and more amourously than any of his many wives and whores.
You're not a mind reader, oromagi.
Long before he ran for President, Trump sought out Putin's company and approval for a wide range of business deals, public entertainments, and complex financial arrangements at a time when no honest businessman would deal with Putin.
Were his business transactions with Putin deemed illegal at the time? Why, in your estimation, was he not charged for Treason then?
Trump's alliance wth Putin was so well understood by 2016
Understood by whom?
Kevin McCarthy was secretly recorded telling the Speaker of the House that Trump was paid to run by Putin, few Republicans were shocked and even fewer cried "treason" although the treason was plain and attested to behind doors by expert witnesses like McCarthy and McCain. Let's remember that it was that Last Good Republican, John McCain, who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI, convinced that Trump was Putin's dog. Seven years later, some important elements of that Dossier have been substantiated, including the Russian hacking of the DNC and Trump's foreknowledge of that hacking, Cohen's and Manafort's roles as Russian in-betweens, and literally hundreds of secrets meetings between many of Trump and Putin's closest functionaries. At no time has Trump ever offered a plausible or consistent explanation for these hundreds of meetings with the enemy and every participant has lied about the meetings until presented with the evidence under oath.
And there's no "conflict of interest" that these Dossiers and Reports were financed by political opposition? I don't dispute that Trump's campaign received foreign investment given that executive policy has global ramifications. As far as that which you claim has been substantiated, and Trump's lack of plausible deniability I presume is all smoke and mirrors.
On the third day of Trump's presidency, the acting Attorney General had an emergency meeting with Trump to warn him that America's top spy, the National Security Advisor, was in fact a covert Russian agent. Trump fired her on the spot for telling him the truth and lied about his reasons for weeks but eventually Flynn confessed that he was taking at least hundreds of thousands dollars from Puitin and secretly meeting with Putin's men and lying and concealing these facts from the FBI.
Was he, Flynn, that is a "covert Russian agent" or was it argued that his lies (discussing Sanctions) made him susceptible to Russian influence, which has always been, and is conjectural?
Trump later admitted that he knew that Flynn was getting paid by Putin for at least weeks before making America's top spy.
For speaking engagements, correct?
Trump after he admittedthat he knowingly place a Russian spy at the heart of American Intelligence
That is not what he stated.
Sorry, that just plain facts.
No, that is your impression.
The Mueller Report failed to discover the content or the nature of Trump's secret relationship with Putin
Enough said, correct?
But he established beyond any doubt that such a secret relationship existed
The content and nature of which has yet to be delineated or substantiated.
and that Trump was willing to break any law to cover up the content and the nature of that secret relationship.
How has this been substantiated?
In spite of Trump's testimony, Trump knew that Russian Intelligence hacked the DNC and demonstrated his knowledge of the contents when only Russian Intelligence and Assange should have had that information. In spite of Trump's testimony, Trump knew Flynn was a Russian agent and was using Flynn to promise Putin that he would shut down Russian sanctions as quickly as possible. Flynn's attorney's recorded Trump's lawyers promising Flynn a pardon if he stayed quiet and promising destruction if Flynn talked. What Trump's secret Russian spy might have talked about remains a mystery since FLynn was pardoned and is now running for office in Sarasota, FL>
Can you substantiate these?
Trump's attempted Coup on Jan 6th
Really?
are all sepearate attacks on the American people's integrity, liberty and right to self-government.
Democracy isn't self-government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I thought I already did.
Do you have a contention against the statement you characterized as "a joke"? If so, explicitly state it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
“The masks worn by millions were useless as designed and could not prevent influenza,” Barry wrote. “Only preventing exposure to the virus could.”
Unfortunately, the point of emphasis isn't prevention, but injecting oneself with a foreign substance which can be a placebo for all one knows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Wait, what? You gotta be joking, and I aint falling for the joke.
I assure you that I'm not. Do you have a contention? If so, please explicitly state it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Covid vaccines appear to have been efficacious in what they set out to achieve.
This is not a scientifically substantiated conclusion.
And not the intended doomsday drugs as predicted by the conspiracy theorists.
Tell that to the survivors of those who died as a result of it.
I would suggest that denial and conspiracy theory are coping strategies.
As is labeling contention as "conspiracy theory."
And in terms of probability, denial is a still small risk especially for reasonably fit people.But as Mr Lamb et al show, there is certainly still risk.
Risk of what? Making use of illogical conclusions premised on a misinterpretation of statistics is a luxury which ought not be employed in this context.
Though I firmly support personal choice.
As do I.
I Hope that you continue to enjoy good health Athias.
Thank you. Ditto.
And for sure there are greater risks to health other than Covid.Like being unreasonably unfit, or having a genetic predisposition to cancer and other serious ailments.Or being a Russian or Ukrainian soldier.
Good point.
Covid vaccine simply addressed one public health issue.
The efficacy of which cannot escape the post hoc fallacy.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Actually, While Trump's tax plan limits certain tax preferences and deductions, it does not include any reductions in federal spending. As a result, the Trump plan increases the federal deficit over the next decade by $10 trillion or $12 trillion, according to several estimates that do not include macroeconomic changes in GDP, investment and employment. Of course, these so-called “static” estimates do not reflect the potential tax revenue from the economic growth resulting from lower tax rates. However, even under “dynamic” scoring, which takes into account a broad range of macroeconomic effects of tax proposals, his tax cuts would still expand the federal deficit over the next decade by $10 trillion — on top of the $10 trillion increase in the federal deficit already projected under current law.
Take a moment to consider the reason tax cuts aren't responsible for this $10 trillion projected increase. In order to help illustrate the conclusion I intend for you to render on your own, I propose you think of an individual who earns an income (and for the sake of argument we'll liken that income to tax revenue.) Now if a person's nominal income decreases (tax cuts,) what reason can you imagine that individual would be in debt or have increased debt?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Don't know why Greyparrot thinks its okay to do their work for them.
Greyparrot is indirectly part of a Korean messianic conspiracy?
Democrats wonder just how gullible Greyparrot thinks they are. All Democracts know that anonymous Wormtongues like Greyparrot are just souless puppets of the anti-American fake news machine and learned long ago to never give a single fuck what lies such assholes tell.
Argumentum ad hominem. You should know better.
The majority of Americans understand that the Constitution explicitly forbids coup plotters and other such traitors from running for any polticial office and thattherefore the matter of Trump's extremely well documented, extremely public, and essentially undenied treasons must be resolved before Trump appears on any future ballot.
Please list and substantiate these "treasons."
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Criminal Trump works for Putin. He even promised to not be in favor of Ukraine if he wins in 2024. Trump motivated his supporters to overturn an election. US president is not supposed to do that. Elections are everything in democracy. He claimed he won. He wasnt even close to winning. He still today claims that elections were rigged. His supporters attacked on his command, despite no evidence of vote fraud. Its not just one reason that makes Trump different. Its a whole long list of reasons.
Please substantiate the command on which his supporters based their "attack."
Maybe he could have stopped saying "You dont need to wear a mask. I dont.".USA had second largest in the world death rate from covid because of Trump.
If one can still smell and breathe through face masks, then those masks are essentially useless. Do you have any controls for the masks which saved lives, and the specific non-use of masks which caused death?
One of Trump's main policies was related to migrants and muslims. There are two types of persons. Constructors and destroyers. Trump doesnt construct much. His policies are mainly about destroying something. Destroying healthcare policies, destroying migration policies... ita all about removing something. Removing muslims, removing migrants, removing taxes, removing obamacare...
I mean by the strictest definition of the term, his policy was somewhat "related" to migrants and Muslims, but was it by reason of their being migrants and Muslims, or was it because of a suspected influx of criminal and terrorist activity?
Trump's policies created almost 10 trillion debt.
Incorrect.
Every republican who votes for Trump votes for Trump's policies. So a lot of republicans. You can see it in this forum too. Trump supporters are known for making anti-migrant, anti-muslim claims, as well as some very racist statements about black people. Of course, black people who cant see through this, they can be republicans.
So so-called "Black" Republicans are blind to this alleged racist veneer of the Republican Party? They are otherwise incapable of using their faculties in making a decision of which political values align with their own?
Any party who has such long list of racist supporters is ultimately a racist party.
List them for me.
There is a reason racists love Trump. He speaks their thoughts.
I know individuals intimately who at least leave me the impression that they're not the textbook definition of racist who happen to laud Trump.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What? What more proof do we need?
What "proof" do you have?
The only next step left for Trump is to start killing migrants. He already killed lots of muslims in airstrikes.
As did his predecessor. What would this be "racially" motivated?
And yes, he robbed poor people of aid.
How?
One doesnt have to be a mindreader to know that republicans are racists.
No, one would have to presume to be a mindreader in order to suggest that one's political affiliation, namely Republican, can by virtue of determine one's being racist or not.
How many "black people are violent" and ""certain police officer" was right in shooting "certain black man"" do we need to realize this?
Which Republicans stated this? And are so-called "Black" and "Hispanic" Republicans racist as well?
They literally constantly talk shit about Mexicans, muslims... they are constantly putting others in labels. Then they get mad when they themselves are put in label of racists.
Which Republicans?
True, but I am not sure whats the point of your whataboutism,
Not a "whataboutism"; you're attempting to distinguish Trump as a criminal particularly in the context of his formerly held office. My point is that this distinction is at best superficial and arbitrary since most if not all presidents--past and present--have been or are criminals.
because criminal Trump works for Putin
They both work for their sponsors.
to bring civil war in USA and overturn democracy.
Civil War will not happen.
He is trying to pull off Star Wars episode 3 scenario.
That happened over a century ago, after the assassination of William McKinley, and the policy which led to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Woodrow Wilson would have been Darth Vader and Edward Mendel House would have been Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine.
Plenty of reasons to hate Trump, really.
Hate is a strong word.
The biggest liar, biggest criminal and worst president in US history.
I wouldn't characterize him as the worst. It's hard to gauge the extent of presidential so-called "prerogative" with respect to the other, but Trump has probably been the "least harmful."
Killed thousands of Americans with bad covid management.
There was little he could do about that.
Any other person would be arrested immediatelly.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh yes, classical projection of course.If you haven't read this before, this sums up how most Democrats argue:
I'm familiar. Partisan affiliation is premised on a metaphorical sanctuary of illusions. The goal is expanded affiliation as opposed to peaceful cooperation or even good will.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its actually very useful to put words in opponent's mouth.
Of course it has a "use"; whether that "use" is directed in service to a sound resolution is another matter.
We simply make people assume that republicans are racists, which they are.
They are? How? And against whom?
Then we put appropriate words in republican's mouth to paint the picture.
An often inaccurate picture which has little, if anything, to do with the subject at hand.
But really, all those words are exactly what republicans think, just dont say.
You're a mind reader? Or are you just projecting your impression?
Trump said he wanted to lock up Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2021.
So these legal shenanigans are retaliation for that which he stated he "wanted" to do?
Trump is literally Hitler
This is actually incorrect.
who hates migrants, muslims and the poor
Outside of explicit statement, there's no way for you to know this.
we should arrest him now or let him be president 4 years and have him suffer final defeat in 2028 when he fucks up everything and loses 2028 election.
Most presidents, if not all, have been criminals. Biden, Trump, Obama, George W, Clinton, George H.W.... James K. Polk, Tyler, Harrison, etc. Trump is subject only to more media scrutiny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Marcus Lamb probably saw you online saying people should not get vaccinated.
So you're suggesting that I'm indirectly responsible for Lamb's death on the off chance he read some obscure comment on a debate site, which NEVER suggested that one should not get vaccinated--only that vaccination should be left to one's discretion? Really?
He probably thought God spoke to you.
God has blessed me with my intellect and capacity for logic. He doesn't need to proof-read my statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I too am also wondering how all those vaccinated people spread the Covid around and died themselves. Wasn't it heavily marketed as being both safe and effective? To the point of censorship?
That's probably the most convincing and often ignored fact about these vaccines: there are those who've taken these vaccines who had spread the infection and succumbed to it. Critical thinking isn't just for academia. It can be life-saving or death-staving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Anti-vaccine Christian broadcaster Marcus Lamb dies at 64 after contracting Covid. I bet he wishes that he had been vaccinated.
What does that have to do with my still being alive? As unfortunate as Mr. Lamb's death is, it only goes to demonstrate that there are no sufficient controls as it regards the efficacy of vaccines. I am still alive after having been exposed to this virus for almost four years. Here's to hoping that I am wished well, and not ill, in order to make a point.
Created: