Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@John_C_87
When reading the 13th Amendment it is clear how the words except as a punishment of criminal law can be confusing.
Having a uterus is not a criminal offense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
Pro-life side in general does not think a sperm or ovum is a person.
Every sperm is sacred is mainly a hyperbole. There is the implicit point within it that a fertilized egg has more in common with sperm than it does a newborn; which brings to mind the classic trolly problem of saving children or fertilized eggs, that no one would save the eggs demonstrates that said eggs are not equal to people.
One bad argument I used to make, is that pro-life people would oppose the government forcing them to care for refugees… while true, it falls into the not even wrong fallacy.
Probably my best point on the topic is simply that slavery is bad. Sadly at the very least leadership in the pro-life movement disagrees… Thankfully in the USA we have protections against that enshrined in our constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John_C_87
Nice word salad.
The are abassadors not to thier body but to the child which waits for immigration created by birth. Also a Law of Nature.
As your statements are not within it, with the closest being related to the president being able to appoint officials for various offices, I worry about your grasp of the human race and how it differs from things like real estate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Should we really be eating eggs?
We ought to be vegetarian, even if the law will probably never reflect that.
And yes, I'm a hypocrite here, I love the taste of chicken too much... Even more so when the waiter brings me a raw egg, since I can't distinguish the developmental difference between the two. 😁
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John_C_87
abortion is by United State Constitution unlawful
That's odd seeing how it's protected by the declaration of independence under the inalienable rights clause, along with both the the 13th and 14th amendments.
A women is by United States Constitution an ambassador
I have read said constitution, and have never seen anything which even remotely implies such talk of female specific medical issues... Please give a direct quote from it which states pregnant women are "ambassadors" to their bodies?
...
I hope this is misplaced, but I'm instantly reminded of the Christian sects who claim Jesus hates gays, and any book (such as the Bible) which disagrees with this should be burnt for disagreeing with the bible (not that they've read it, but their cult leaders did and told them that's what it says).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
Legal Argument(1) Murder is the taking of an innocent person’s life.(2) According to the law, a pregnancy is not recognized as a person.(3) Therefore, abortion is not murder.
Not all things that are wrong are murder. I do use the above argument, but only in defense to the ever stupid "abortion is murder" claim.
Personhood ArgumentIt's easier said than done to come up with a good concept of personhood. Finding a coherent concept of personhood is a philosophical exercise and a rabbit hole.
Since I don't believe every sperm is sacred, I prioritize personhood as measured by a mind. That said, injury by proxy may occur (it's actually the foundation of the pro-life movement; women having rights hurts their feelings). To me a newborn is not a person, and yet it would still be criminal to harm them (the family is invested, plus wanted cruelty to animals is still sick).
Granted, people on the pro-life side don't think a mind should matter, likely because they can't use that as a tool in their misogyny.
The fetus/embryo/(input early stage) is a clump of cells and not a human being
I've never actually used that one. See above the the personhood discussion... I don't consider the coincidence of human DNA to be important without a mind.
I didn't have enough characters, but I attempted a little discussion of this in a recent debate.
I didn't have enough characters, but I attempted a little discussion of this in a recent debate.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
One tactic I advocate for, is to occasionally debate in against our belief on a matter.
There's also an old Jewish debate tradition of listening to someone's arguments, until you can paraphrase it back to them, have them agree that's their argument...
And only then refute it.
...
The above are of course for areas which are not utter intellectual dead ends.
Neo-Nazis, Incels, etc., have already been proven to have zero merit to very rotten core of their ideas, so kicking the soap box out from under them (preventing the unchallenged spread of their cults) seems like the best course of action available.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Simply put, most debates will not fall into the ideals to which you're advocating.
Debates can be about finding truth; but frequently we already know the truth, and that the opponent is too thick headed to consider that they might be wrong. When I debates neo-Nazis as an example, knowing they cannot change, I instead seek to humiliate them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Rewatching some Dr Who I was reminded of this. If you haven’t seen the classic series 5 episode Vincent and The Doctor, please take the time.
In essence:
Amy Pond : We didn't make a difference at all.The Doctor : I wouldn't say that. The way I see it, every life is a pile of good things and bad things.[hugs Amy]The Doctor : The good things don't always soften the bad things, but vice-versa, the bad things don't necessarily spoil the good things and make them unimportant. And we definitely added to his pile of good things.
You added to his pile of good things.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
She’d have my vote. Joe and Donald not so much.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What is it about democracy that you believe connects to "emasculation"?
It feels like you’re intentionally misreading things. Trump is a well documented crybaby. This started long before he became a politician.
Are you actually going to deny Trump’s routine claims of victimhood?
It’s a dangerous thing when someone has a cult of personality built around them (hence, why I oppose preventing him from running… which you somehow seem to take offense at). Look back at your own posts, just a few ago you were threatening civil war over the idea that someone could be ineligible… Had Trump been successful in preventing Obama from becoming president due to questions of eligibility, would you likewise take up arms against the government?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
…simply make everything illegal and then only punish the people you wanted gone in the first place.
Where did GP and/or Roosevelt sexually harass anyone? or are you pretending all crimes are equal?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It is antidemocratic and that will mean civil war for a nation with the history of the USA.
As previously stated: “feed directly into his emasculated victim narrative.”
That his supports while buying into said narrative will threaten civil war about the very idea that he could potentially be ineligible, further supports my point.
And this isn’t even touching on the massive hypocrisy of Trump and friends trying to throw out the democratic process (see “birth certificate,” and January 6 insurrection).
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
let IWantRoseveltAgain to constantly get away with his repeated CoC violationsTrue
Not all CoC violations are equal. Someone not being nice, is far less severe than outright sexual harassment.
There is no debate hereAlso True
If you can't find any which appeal to you, start one.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You're approaching word salad. Something something 10 bananas, something something anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you must be a fan of CNN, something something any criticism of politicians will cause a civil war. Did I get the gist right?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I understand now why you're importing so many Venezuelans.
Funny coincidence, I've been talking to one whom I might import...
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The big problem with any efforts to prevent him from running for president, is those feed directly into his emasculated victim narrative.That's the only problem you could think of? Nothing about being a direct contradiction of the democratic premise?
I can think of plenty of others. However, within a democracy the majority rule, even if they're unwise.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The big problem with any efforts to prevent him from running for president, is those feed directly into his emasculated victim narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
09/12/2023
Moderator: Joint Decision
TWS1405_2 has been banned for 14 days, due to an exponential increase of invectives, to include hate speech and sexual harassment.
From the CoC:
Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.
Created:
Posted in:
I doubt he’ll end up in prison. Too many lawyers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Having known plenty of dead people, I can say that you should take it easy on yourself however you grieve; it’s quite unpredictable.
Created:
Regarding reports about post #20…
While being critical of two users, it is criticism of actions as part of the discussion.
We neither want this to be a cesspit nor a safe space.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@oromagi
@FLRW
@IwantRooseveltagain
Regarding increased enforcement, I'll do a quick compare and contrast to some posts here.
- RM's #4 is very ideal. It opens dialog, etc.
- Oromagi's #3 is not ideal but is reflecting on the topic. There are limits to the extent of personal attacks but being critical in ongoing discussions is endorsed by the CoC. It is far better to seek to prove him wrong, than to try to dismiss without refuting his accusations on this topic. Notice ADOL's #5, in which he proposes another hypothesis for the observations.
- Roosevelt's #9 and #14 are highly problematic. Please don't jump to such basic name calling. Contrast that the wit to which #7 opened and closed.
- Roosevelt's #11 isn't bad. While certainly critical, it is reflecting and interpreting the topic. That he draws an unflattering conclusion, does not make it baseless vitriol and/or lame name calling. Again, better to prove him wrong than to try to dismiss without refuting his accusations on this topic.
- FLRW's #16... Please don't do that again. Key different between your post and oromagi's is one is implying a likely unconscious bias, whereas the other is leaping to some very precise and unwarranted conclusions.
From the CoC:
Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. However, criticizing statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.
As a hypothetical, if I make a dozen posts about how great purple bowties are, criticisms of those favoritisms (even blowing them somewhat out of proportion) are justified across the multiple threads I create about fashion. Jumping to the conclusion that I wiped out the homo erectus, is simply a bullshit leap.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It won’t but neither will staying strictly on the defense. So dividing Putin’s attention, makes sense as a tactic to decrease their own casualties.
I am pretty sure this war can’t end until Putin is dead. It’s his immortality project, to be remembered in history; and he won’t accept defeat to such an extent that he claims his military is so incompetent that his ships sink themselves.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol. So sad. I don’t know how you survive. How are you still alive?Please take care of this now. Threats to a person's life can't be ignored.
He was implying you suffer such a defective brain, that it’s a miracle you’re able to breathe.
So not a threat by any means.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There was strong evidence of Lancealot being connected to the offending accounts (primarily but not exclusively the troll debates to get them voting privileges).
My interpretation based on available evidence, is most likely he invited some real life friends to the site. Said accounts were issued a preemptive warning not to vote on his debates. Said accounts votebombed in his favor.
It would be hard to deny him having strong influence over the users in question.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I’m reminded of a friend quitting a job, and giving the security camera the finger on the way out.
That they were rude while walking out of the building, does not necessitate a ‘you can’t quit, you’re fired!’ historical revisionist response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Quoting religious texts and within the religion forum, will hopefully never be against the rules.
Some agreement with it could cross the line. Jesus commanding forced abortions, is different than you stating that in his name you are going to abort the children of fellow site members. Muslims string an intent to follow in their prophets footsteps in various clearly criminal ways, would likewise be problematic; even while they are otherwise free to discuss said actions or their prophet to include saying because special pleading it’s ok for him to have done those things. Another example is stoning to death anyone who says the lord’s name; it can be discussed, but we’d have to ban anyone who (in a non-joking manner) threatened to do such to other site members.
I am personally chill about almost anything so long as there’s not too much of it. I would not expect to be banned the first time I threaten to break something down Barney style for someone (a clear accusation that they’re feeble minded); but if I did it every other post some intervention would be warranted.
A user might get upset if you threaten to Bible slap them silly (such that they mistake it for a threat of real violence), whereas you could refer to having recently Bible slapped silly some of those Christian protesters outside concerts and such into a coma, since they were wearing mixed fabrics (or whatever sin). So you can express the concept, without aiming it at a fellow user. E.g, ‘at least you’re not as bad as the southern Baptist minister I Bible slapped silly into a coma the other day at pride fest’ note that you are still able to disagree with their knowledge and interpretations of scripture, even referencing your ®️ terms, just not constantly making direct insults aimed at them.
Another work around is toning it down in threads initiated by other users, and have your own threads with a disclaimer in your first post that any participant is likely to be roasted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I propose RM to be made moderator. He was on the site for a very long time and contributed a lot to site's activity.
I would love to see that argued as a counter plan in the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Good questions!
Calling an individual Bible Stupid or Bible Ignorant is not as bad as just calling them stupid or ignorant in general, since it is referring to a topical subset of knowledge. That said, repetition of it can over time make it problematic; especially if using cross thread contamination (that someone misquoted the Bible some weeks ago, is not something to bring up in every biblical discussion to which they engage).
Insulting public figures is of course protected speech. Groups in general as well, so long as you’re not targeting the individual who is a member. E.g., men are pigs, so you’re a filthy stupid pig for being male. Ideally even while we have bias against certain groups, we should give fellow site members the benefit of the doubt that they are an exception. So if you know a fellow site member is a cop, you should not be proclaiming ACAB, even while you may fairly say in general terms that cops are bastards. This gets into the ‘not all men’ area of discussion, since so long as the accusation was not made against all men then it’s pointless deflection to remind people there are exceptions (that Tom Hiddleston exists, does not single handedly defeat the patriarchy).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
There’s been a wave of last minute votebombs changing debate outcomes.
Please give us tools to combat this, even if the tools are imperfect.
I don’t mind if I have to do manual calculations for direct rating adjustments (yes, the exact shifts will be lost; but a close approximation is massively preferable to no correction at all).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Woke us just another thing for Karens to bemoan.
Created:
He’s one of the most obvious examples of the swamp needing to be drained.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
they are all at 0 to 13 points, where Trump is at 57 points. He scores more than all the others together, let alone individually.
Hence proving my earlier comments about a cult of personality.
When I registered as a Republican the party was pro-military, family values, and integrity. Amazing how fast that all inverted.
Sadly the Democratic Party isn’t any better, and is outright anti-democracy. So neither of the two parties are a fit for anyone with my value sets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I wish i was the fastest person alive.
Wish granted, everyone who was faster than you perishes.
I wish there to be a silver-bullet cure for cancer.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
tl;dr:Trump loyalists would cartoonishly defend any crime he could commitIf anyone didn't defend any crime you would probably say "well that one isn't a loyalist".
Trump openly committed treason (call it sedition if you like), and he's still a popular enough politician to have a good chance at being reelected. Therefore I am not being deceptive by referring to a few odd-ball crazies in the mix but rather a mass cult of personality.
...
I have the advantage of not being a political ideologue, which makes me able to say fuck Trump and fuck Biden. Hell, not that long ago Obama had ideologue supporters as well; it was a problem then and it's a problem now. Politicians should not be placed on some pedestal as if they are the messiah.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
That mentality is why I stopped buying Cards Against Humanity, as they openly declared not supporting Clinton was somehow supporting Trump.
I generally don't mind them being political, but I really hate that poor logic.
...
I view a vote for a third party to be a vote of no confidence to the two-party system (unlike just not voting, which counts for nothing). If I lived in a swing state I'd handle it differently.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@IwantRooseveltagain
Regarding salty spam accusations...
Spam may be
- irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients
- a canned meat product made mainly from ham.
Our anti-spam rules are for the first type, and/or anything shared by bots.
Sharing high (but not overwhelming) numbers of political articles onto a political forum, is a grey area (much like the color of some canned meat).
Flooding a forum fill the whole first page of it, would be clearly crossing the line; four threads within the political sub-forum does not.
That said, from the rules:
criticizing statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.
So it is not out of line to call it spam, even while it's not spam as far as enforcement of the CoC is concerned.
While it's a tu quoque fallacy, it's also not out of line to call repetitive jokes about it spam.
P.S.
There is indeed a difference between saying someone brought spam to a pot-luck, and they are themselves spam. However, it's pretty immaterial in this case.
...
I'll add that I would prefer they be from a news source which is not locked behind a pay wall; but that is a personal preference on my part.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
In fairness towards Trump, I have doubts about any president since Washington taking the oath of office seriously.
Well yeah, they have the tremendous legal argument of "But what about Hunter", that pretty much exonerates Trump.
"Hitler"?! About about Bill Clinton!!! Oh you say Hitler murdered countless millions of people, but what about Bill Clinton?!
And yeah, seeing how I never voted for either Clinton, I don't get why whataboutbillclinton keeps being brought up as it were on topic to anything.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Trump said he could get away with shooting someone on the street. The show did a parody of that very statement, showing what the likely reaction would be were such to actually occur.
This is only made worse by some republican rallies openly embracing Homelander (a deranged mass murderer, albeit, a handsome one) as a mascot.
I do not think Trump and Homelander are the same person, even while some of Homelander's plots criticize the cult of personality.
tl;dr:
Trump loyalists would cartoonishly defend any crime he could commit
Created:
He could get away with murder
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Otherwise you are a complete and utter failureReported for insulting a moderator.
Mods are by necessity thick skinned assholes. As much as we're technically site users same as anyone else, as the arbiters of the rules, we generally opt to ignore harassment aimed at us. Even the Pizzagate guy, I banned him when it was merited for his attacks on other members instead of the moderation team.
Plus, the issue of insults isn't the one off comments in isolation but rather repetitive bullshit; even more so when said bullshit is self-evidently really straining against the upper limits of someone's intellect to generate that degree of eloquence.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So even though that post was made several days ago you just got a report on it yesterday, is that what you are saying?
Age of unreported posts is irrelevant. No one is paid to sit around and read every single post on this site.
Further, had you made a report on it yesterday, that would then put it in the review queue yesterday, not last week, and not when the post was originally made.
And finally, in order to report a post:
Click the ellipsis button (three dots) to open a menu, then the little flag which has the word "Report" next to it.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Your posts bore me too much for me to search through any of them to which I have not been specifically asked.
Your post was reported, so I looked at it, and it contains the same mild problem as I've lost count of how many others from you. A mild problem done enough times, becomes a more than mild problem.
As for TWS, why would I have warned him for something which was not reported? And how would any poor behavior from him detract from the repetitive issue of your poor behavior towards him? If he's called you "Mr. anger management TDS syndrome" a bunch of times, report them, and by all means I'll give him a warning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
got a free ride to go to his correspondence school after he left the navy, other people should have to pay for their tuition.
Military service is as much a free ride for education, as working for money and investing it in such an education.
I don't have a clue how you're confusing hard work with a "free ride."
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Are you still living on disability? I know some places that are hiring.
You are far too non-sequitur and repetitive with this.
Please cease.
Created: