Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
None of what you said addresses anything I wrote.
Faith is a process to gain knowledge. A process, not an instantaneous event. I've shown plenty of times how to work the process
Please point me to where the process is explained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And that is exactly why the topic is bashed by the people who have so much to gain by it not being studied.
At no point have I argued or suggested that it shouldn’t be studied. The topic of this thread is about why many people don’t want to discuss it. That’s a question about our political discourse, not science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
No, the science is objective and could probably be determined within the next decade or so
Then why would we have the conversation now?
The bolded part is just a bare assertion. It very well could.
The bolder part began with “there is no reason to believe”. That’s not an assertion of what anything could or could not be. You are responding to statements I never made.
there is no reason to assume that adaptation resulting in phenotypical differences stopped at the brain.
Nor have I argued that they would. The question isn’t whether there is any difference, the question is whether those differences are large enough to play any significant role in the results we see.
And once we answer that question… so what? What policy difference would that possibly make? Are we going to declare one race to be inferior to the others and base policy around that idea, perhaps to give the inferior race an advantage to make up the difference?
That’s obviously an absurd proposition, which is kind of the entire point. The only path this conversation goes down is to excuse our history and blame all of our inequalities in on Mother Nature. So when someone who refuses to acknowledge that history wants to go down this path instead while proclaiming they’re not racist, that just wreaks of disingenuousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
There’s always a useful application for truth. If it’s true that traits are not evenly distributed between groups than inequality between groups is not racist.
Which is exactly why race realism is an attractive topic for every racist. How nice to not have to bother thinking about our history and it’s lasting effects on our society when you can just deem the minority race to be inferior, blame it all on Mother Nature and then call it a day.
Not every truth is relevant, it depends on what we’re trying to accomplish. If the goal is to live in a society that treats everyone equally, recognizing genetic differences among subgroups of the population serves no purpose. If however, the goal is to drown out any discussion of how we got to where we are, then this becomes very relevant.
But beyond that, the problem is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe genetic differences in racial groups would ever be different enough to account for any significant portion of racial inequality. There’s no race gene, and there’s no practical way to separate ones genetics from the impact society has each individual based on what they look like. The “science” on this will always be flawed, so it will always come down to what your personal biases make out of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You can tell that many liberals secretly believe that race realism/human biodiversity is real because they form a taboo around discussing the issue. Taboos and euphemisms typically form not because people are convinced of their positions, but because they are afraid of/ashamed of their own true beliefs which are not the beliefs they publicly proclaim.
Or… many of us are just tired of arguing with people who are disingenuous and just trying to use us to give themselves a platform to spread their racist ideology.
As has been pointed out many times already in this thread, the issue is not that race realism is invalid as a concept, the problem is that there is no meaningful application for it other than to justify deliberately maintaining racial inequities under the guise of scientific legitimacy.
Created:
Yeah most people never seriously consider anything before the "just because".
And yet it’s still what determines where we all stand on any issue, so when someone ducks and dodges to avoid talking about it I find that very telling.
Let me make this crystal clear: politics will **always** play a role, unless you dramatically change the human brain.
And let me make this crystal clear: This isn’t a campaign office, it’s a debate site. Defending your values is kind of the point.
You literally started a thread asking what should be done about race in America while refusing to talk about basic values. That’s absurd.
Now, normally I'd just leave it there, but I've had a few convos with you in the past, and I know how inconsistent you're being here.……what you don't do is criticize your own groups to the same degree because you don't understand that you're tribal, too.
My views clearly align with the political left, that’s not what tribalism means. Tribalism is when you place your tribe ahead of your core values, or when your core values essentially are your tribe.
Objectivity and neutrality are not the same thing.
Bias and tribalism are not the same thing.
The demonstration of bias is hypocrisy. The demonstration of tribalism is overt hypocrisy. For example when one supports impeaching a president for lying about a blow job but considers it a sham to impeach another president for attempting to extort a foreign nation into investigating his political opponent, or when one attacks a president for a declining cognitive state while giving a pass to another president who thought it would be a good idea to nuke a hurricane or that clean coal means you grab a piece of coal and scrub it with a brush… that’s tribalism.
Hypocrisy exists on both sides, but it is no where near as blatant and as absurd on the left as it is on the right. That’s why I call it out on the right but don’t bother much with the left. I wouldn’t argue that I’m not biased because we all are. Tribal? No, not even close. I don’t even identify with a tribe, so I find that to be an absurd allegation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11: 1"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."
There is nothing about this definition that fits into an argument that faith is a 6th sense.
Twice in these two definitions the central word here is “hope” which fits with the main usage of this word. The only other idea provided is “evidence of things not seen” which is really just reiterating the fact that this is based on hope.
I have no idea what case you’re trying to make, other than being really wishful for something to be true to the point that you are willing to call it knowledge to make yourself feel better about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
You haven’t argued for any expansion of the senses, you just asserted faith as a 6th and declared it our obligation to prove you wrong.
Please define faith, and please define knowledge.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
AZ election officials and Dominion refused subpoena to turn over election equipment and tally results to the AZ Senate. What other con conclusion could be drawn from the lack of that evidence?
I think you mean, what conclusion can be drawn from the lack of evidence. I’m all ears.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Kilmeade: According to a Axios-Ipsos poll, 70 percent of white Americans say they trust the local police. Only 36 percent of African Americans do. How do you attack that problem? How do you change things?
Trump: Well I think it’s a very sad problem. As you know, as a Republican I’m doing very well with African Americans and with the vote with the — in polls and everything — especially, I mean, I haven’t seen one very recently because you had the plague come in from China.
So that changed things up, but we had the best economy ever. We had the best numbers for African-American on employment and unemployment in history. Best homeownership — best everything. We had the best numbers in everything — not only African-American, but the African-American numbers were great.
Kilmeade: How do you handle the law enforcement part of this?
Trump: They have to get better than what they’ve been doing. I mean obviously that was a terrible thing. And I’ve spoken about it numerous times in various speeches. And what’s interesting is I spoke about it when we launched a very successful rocket — a tremendous program that culminated on that day and obviously it goes on from there.
But I then made a speech and it was a speech about the rocket, and I devoted 25 percent of the speech probably to what happened — or more — to what happened with respect to George — George Floyd, and it was — and then you listen to this, he doesn’t talk about George Floyd. The rocket went off, I then I made a speech, and I talked about George Floyd, but they said he didn’t talk about George Floyd.
Half — maybe even almost half of the speech, but a large portion of the speech was devoted exactly to that. And so, you know, with — with the media you basically — and basically no matter what you do, it’s never going to be good enough. But the people understand it.
Kilmeade: Right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have no idea how that’s relevant, but ok.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So why do so many people interpret the things Biden says as mentally sharp,
Because most of the things he says are.
The difference between us is that people like me listen to what he actually says, people like you listen only to the sound bite compilations they put together on Fox News.
Biden has his moments and those moments have certainly increased with age. I would not put him on the level of, say Obama when it comes to his sharpness, but the claims that he is some old senile man are just plain stupid.
And what’s most ridiculous about this is the fact that these criticisms come from the same people who support Donald Trump, the most incoherent public official we’ve ever seen. So it’s one thing to point out Biden’s decline, but to make that an argument against him while supporting someone who is so much worse is just ridiculous and shows you to be an unserious person to have this discussion with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Interestingly, Fred Trump got the equivalent of millions of dollars as a young man from Klondike gold rush inheritance but wasn't able to turn it into a billion dollars like his son did.
What’s your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Wow, you really owned the lib. Congratulations.
My exact words were “the man is a fraud”. Any intellectually honest reader with an IQ above temperature understands that my statement had absolutely nothing to do with constitutional requirements to be president.
Read my statement again and respond to what I actually said. Or don’t.
Created:
And the correct legal response was to break the law? The "information" they were looking at was all a fabrication.
I never said nor suggested that the proper legal response was to break the law. I know your attention span is short so let me remind you that we’re talking about the credibility of the institution itself and I was pointing out how silly it is to pretend that these few individuals, whatever you think of them, is a valid reason to wholesale reject everything the FBI finds even after they are no longer a part of it.
Your claim of fabrication is pure fabrication. Half of what they were looking at is now public knowledge and isn’t even contested. You are hopelessly biased.
Today Trump is free and unindicted, both FBI lovebirds are shamed and fired
Unindicted is not the same thing as innocent. But you already know that.
They may be fired but are anything but ashamed, at least not when it comes to their actions as FBI agents. The political right’s obsession with them is absurd, and the hypocrisy of slandering them for having and expressing their own opinions to themselves *privately* couldn’t be any more blatant given the right’s obsession with cancel culture and swearing it’s really the left who is trying to silence people’s political opinions. As always with the right, everything is projection.
It was presented to a judge to persuade him to grant warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Yes, which does not refute anything I just said. This wasn’t a prosecution. It wasn’t a declaration of guilt. The Dossier was again, one document in a collection of documents used to make the case to a judge that they had a valid *predicate* to conduct a wire tap. The purpose of the wire tap is to gather evidence, so again, there was absolutely nothing wrong with presenting it and you haven’t even bothered to try and come up with a reason to say it was. Everything you’ve given are hindsight pronouncements straight out of Fox News. Can you please provide some kind of argument to support your BS?
Can you point to just one thing in that document that has been proven false?Can I not?
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You called it a “fake Dossier”. Do you have any evidence for this claim at all? Can you show that anything in it is actually fake?
would ask you to prove your implied claim here that I have ever ran away from your questions but we both know it’s completely made up bullshit.The claim that you don't answer questions is clearly in your posts, as such, no further response is needed here.
Exactly, you have nothing because it’s bullshit.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Most people don't care about "philosophically grounded" or "core value" ideas. Most people aren't applying Utilitarian theory or Austrian Economics to support their policy advocations.
I'm starting to believe you're just trolling, nobody is this thick headed.
The minimum wage point was just an example. That’s all.
If you believe X, then X had to come from somewhere. This isn’t complicated, unless you want it to be. Think problem of infinite regress… now imagine the point that comes right before “just because”. That’s the point we are talking about, and it’s different for each of us. Change that and you change everything after it. Understand that point in someone else and you can understand why they hold the world view that they do.
Not complicated, unless you want it to be.
People might agree that politics shouldn't play a role in policy (not even sure if that's true, but it doesn't matter), but then it does anyway.
You: it’s wrong to create policy without regards to politics.
Me: actually, it’s wrong to create policy on the basis of politics, that’s the very reason people hate politicians
You: well politics does play a role
No shit it does play a role, we’re talking about whether it should. Or at least we were, but this is what you do every time you get cornered… retreat back to what does happen as if there is some kind of disagreement about that. There isn’t, you just refuse to talk about anything you actually believe which really makes me wonder why you bother posting on a debate site.
To not base policy on race is to base policy on non-humans.
Race is a subcategory of humans. You do not have to break something up into irrelevant categories in order to make policy about it. This is like arguing that policy on cars must take into account different automakers otherwise it’s not really policy about cars. That’s just stupid.
This topic of conversation isn't about me lol but I'll answer it anyway.
The topic of conversation is about the arguments you are making. In order to understand the argument you are making we need to understand the ideas that sit at the core of your argument (aka core values). The question of whether you believe policy should be logical are very important to understanding what you are trying to say, because as far as I can tell you don’t, which makes things very clear.
I support policy that supports my own tribal groups
Thank you for finally making your position clear. You’re not about what’s best for society, you’re about what’s best for white people.
This is the literal definition of a racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Does Orangeman bad cause depression?
It's called common sense and reason, and no, it doesn't.
The guy that shot Babbitt is alive and well, no PTSD there.
There shouldn't be, he did exactly what he was supposed to do. Perhaps if she were wearing a black lives matter t-shirt this wouldn't be so complicated for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
"i conclude God doesn't exist, because when i look at evidence for God, my assumptions are that God doesn't exist" = literally the circular way ya'll think
It’s literally how the default position works. That’s why science is based on methodological naturalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Again, though the Bible AND science silences and shames atheists, they can only dismiss the Bible while claiming to uphold science which says the same thing!
So I take it you’re saying that genesis got the order right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm a bit suspicious of all the abnormal DC cop suicides after Jan 6. Sounds like Hillary and Co. doing more wetwork covering shit up.the standard suicide rate for a DC cop is .024% or 2 per 10,000 cops.I'm pretty sure there weren't anywhere near 20,000 DC cops in the Capitol on Jan 6.
Any rational person would look at this and say wow, I guess Jan 6th really was quite bad.
Trumpers look at this and go “duh must be the Clintons”.
Pretty much sums up our politics right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Trump’s entire claim as to why he was qualified to be president is that he was a self made billionaire. How do you not understand the point? The man is a fraud, it’s literally the only thing he is good at.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Crooked FBI agents discussing their "insurance policy" against a Trump win fits my political narrative. Did I imagine that?How about the fake Steele dossier the FBI used to illegally spy on Trump? Smoke and mirrors?
The Peter Strzok and Lisa Page obsession continues. Did you imagine it? Well, as is the case with most conspiracy theories, you didn’t imagine the initial premise, just everything after that. Setting aside the fact that they had every right to be concerned about Trump given the information they were looking at, even if we assume the worst, they’re two people. Two. You’re talking about an entire institution, one that preceded them and one that proceeds them. To pretend that is a strong case for distrusting the entire institution is pretty ridiculous.
The Steele Dossier… Trump’s greatest hits just keep coming. The Dossier first of all was just one document in a trove of documents used, and more importantly the entire thing was admittedly speculative. No one claimed it was hard evidence for anything, but what I find most amazing about the right wing obsession of it is the fact that it was pretty damn accurate. Can you point to just one thing in that document that has been proven false?
If you were so chummy with reality, you wouldn't be so terrified of questions.
Now this is just stupid. I would ask you to prove your implied claim here that I have ever ran away from your questions but we both know it’s completely made up bullshit. Our conversations stop because you stop responding or because your responses become unbearably nonsensical and unserious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Would you also say that an uncaused cause is an effect of time?
No, if it’s an effect then time itself would be the cause. That’s not how those words are defined.
That’s as specific as I can be, anything further would be pure baseless speculation.So, you don't know?
Um, yeah, that’s what I just said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’ve never seen someone so singularly dedicated to avoiding the other persons point. Right?
lol maybe this comment woke him up
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The FBI is not a credible accuser.
It must be so wonderful to live in a state of ignorant bliss where you get to believe anything you want merely by hand waiving away anything that doesn’t fit your political narrative.
What really makes me wonder is how you don’t understand why the two sides see things differently. The reason is because some people actually care about reality. I know that’s difficult for you to imagine, but try.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
just curious, but wasn't the target Trump? Hint: he's a former, not the current.
First of all, please don’t pretend the republican party is not beholden to this man or that the only thing at this point stopping him from being the clear front runner for the nomination in 2024 is the fact that he hasn’t announced.
As far as him being the target, I don’t even know what that means. If it means he’s the biggest fish then of course he is. The conversation you were responding to was about his associations being very telling when it come to what he’s really about. Do you dispute that?
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
I agree with everything you said in the first paragraph, the next to are full of nonsense.
Your core values are the very thing that ultimately determines your position on anything. If you believe we should raise the minimum wage, at the very least you have to believe that government has a big role to play in ensuring workers are treated fairly.
You do not need to be able to articulate your core values or even be consciously aware of them, they are there whether you know about them or not, whether you understand them or not. That’s why the whole idea of debating is to explore those values as they are tested against someone else’s. So when debating someone who refuses to discuss them, that tells me a lot about the person that I’m dealing with.
Regarding your second paragraph, you claimed that it’s wrong to make policy without regard to politics or biology. We all know that politics plays a role in policy and as a society we damn near unanimously agree that it shouldn’t so I find this to be a very bizarre statement. The fact that politics always plays a role is the very reason people hate and do not trust politicians. When someone says “this is all about politics” they’re literally saying this policy either makes no sense or is not being enacted for valid reasons.
And as far as biology goes, If we’re talking about collective biology, as in all of our biologies then yes, of course it would. But what you’re talking about is splicing up the population along racial lines, determining what differences we can discern, and then base policy off of those differences. And setting aside the fact that you have yet to give a clear example of what that would even look like, the biological differences between us are so small that whatever differences are established would be too insignificant for any policy considerations to even make sense.
I’ve answered your question, now please answer mine.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Quick, pull out the "guilt by association" fallacy!
So the fact that nearly everyone Trump has surrounded himself with has either committed a crime or has secret ties to Russians means nothing to you, is that correct?
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
They don't care if it's logical/philosophically sound/whatever.
Do you support policy that is not logical? Yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
“Who do you believe were the “fine people” on each side Trump was referring to, and what was the issue in contention?”Again, this was the (honest) question I posed to you. You gave a comprehensive response, yes, but none of it answered any part of the question.
I actually did answer the question, you weren’t paying attention. My answer was that I don’t believe he was talking about anyone. Trump is a con man so saying nice things regardless of whatever his emotions are is second nature to him.
Or to put it more simply; he was just bullshitting.
You may not have realized this, but I haven’t been trying to convince you that your opinion is “wrong.” . I have merely been explaining to you why I hold my opinion in spite of your direct protests.
But you haven’t. I have given you long detailed reasons why the things you are saying is wrong and you haven’t responded to any of it. So as far as I can tell, you believe what you believe because you want to believe it.
The back and forth is kind of the point here. I have my objections and you have yours, the conversation continues until we get to the point where our viewpoints diverge. Then, we can see why we disagree, which in turn gives us a more enlightened perspective on the opposing side of our positions, which in turn better equips us to determine whether the views we hold are the views we should continue to hold and to advocate for. That’s how this is supposed to work.
Cutting off the conversation because the person you are talking too will never change their position shows that the conversation was pointless to begin with, and suggests to me that when you claim I am just trying to “win”, it’s all projection. That’s how you see it because that is what would motivate you to continue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No it's not. It's fabricating reasons to justify irrational feelings. That's a particularly feminine trait of humans. Not all people do this.
lol!
I know Trump supporters tend to suffer from extreme insecurities, especially when it comes to their manhood, but don’t project your shit on me bro. I couldn’t care less.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
That's how politics actually works.
Yes, and our conversation is about policy. Let me know when you actually want to have a conversation about it. Which is strange that I have to request it considering you start entire threads on it, but whatever. Do you.
You want to talk about "core values" and "philosophical grounding" without dealing with the fact most humans won't vote based on that.
Philosophical grounding and core values is what determines how you interpret the facts, assess their value, and apply them to what you believe. It’s what makes debating our respective positions worth the conversation. If all you want to talk about is how to run PR firm you should rephrase your threads accordingly.
You don't understand politics at all.
That’s never been the topic of our conversation.
Yes, it wasn't until you started making arguments that started to use it as a premise.Don't make it the topic if you don't want to discuss it.
Perhaps you would understand the premise of my arguments if you actually engaged in the topic. Turns out it’s pretty easy to twist someone else’s position in your head when all you do is strawman them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
frankly, those countries must see to it themselves if they will. That they don't is not the fault of the US, and we should not have to bear the burden of their fearful citizens.
That has nothing to do with this. I’m speaking to the absurdity of acting like and treating people crossing the southern border as if they’re the same as the guy who robs banks. Just because you can place two different behaviors in the same category (a crime) doesn’t mean those two behaviors are the same.
Sufficient to demonstrate the. point that the media is not the holy sepulcher you think it is.
I never claimed, argued, nor even suggested that the media was the holy sepulcher of anything. Perhaps you should actually listen to the arguments people are making before wasting your time refuting things they never said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Who do you believe were the “fine people” on each side Trump was referring to, and what was the issue in contention?
That’s the issue - there were no “very fine people” on the the alt-right side, at least there was no evidence of it. Like I said, the event was organized by White supremacists, they literally had the former grand Wizard of the KKK as a featured speaker.
Since then there has been an attempt to fabricate images of very fine people there to prove Trump right, but those were all after the fact. The only thing that made the event news worthy at the time was its tie to overt white supremacy. Everyone knew that.
I actually don’t take Trump too seriously on his comment though, he’s a con man so saying nice things about people just to butter them up is 2nd nature to him. What I take as telling is the fact that given all there was to despise about what happened, all of his anger was directed towards the left and he was visibly frustrated that people weren’t focusing on them instead. That’s what the entire back and forth with reporters was all about for him.
This is the part that says more about him than anything else. He might have said some of the right things on paper but watch him and you see that there was nothing about his tone, body language, or the context of his statement’s to suggest that he was the least bit bothered by any of what we saw coming from the white supremacist crowd. That’s why the “good people on both sides” narrative is so offensive. His condemnations of white supremacy came off as an attempt to check the boxes on his talking point list. His condemnations of the left were natural and passionate. It’s clear where his head was.
No— I’m pointing out how they kept looking for turds to throw at the wall to see what stuck.
But your examples didn’t establish that. You are criticizing the media by comparing their stories in hindsight. Anyone can be made to look like a fool that way, so it’s indicative of nothing. If you really want to make a reasonable case you’d need to show how the information they were working with at the time suggested otherwise, yet I gave you very clear reasons why they were right to be concerned and you have nothing to say about it. I find that telling.
Funny— both you and Ramshutu address North Korea exclusively…
It’s literally the first thing on your list.
When tensions went the opposite way, MSM did not reflect and ask “Is Trump tapping into something we don’t fully understand via his unconventional behavior? Does he possess a curious knack for dealing with a dangerous dictator?” No
Because not only is there is no evidence of that, but given the traits and qualities Trump has demonstrated it’s an absurd suggestion.
You’re talking about a man who spent his entire life in real estate, a man who shows literally every sign of narcissistic personality disorder, a man who has demonstrated time and time again both his ignorance propensity to BS people. The idea that he is some hidden calculated genius is ridiculous, smart people do not talk or act like that.
Provide one example of something Biden should have been held accountable for which the media failed and I will be happy to give my thoughts.Thanks, but no need. This response says enough for me.
This actually says more about you than it does me. There is this thing we tend to accept here called the burden of proof. Notice how when I made claims I went out of my way to explain in detail why I believe them…
Your turn. You’re the one claiming Biden is not being held accountable by the media so it’s your burden to substantiate that claim, not my burden to search for examples to prove he is. The only notable example you gave was her Hunter laptop story, but I see Ramshutu already refuted that in detail and I don’t believe I saw any response to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hence the gatekeepers screening "proper" questions.
It’s called using reason to assess one’s motivations. It’s kind of what human beings do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can see how the media treats people that ask questions. Only the media is allowed to ask questions.Just ask Nikki Minaj.
Asking questions is fine provided they are asked in good faith. The problem is when they are not.
This is a classic tactic by conspiracy theorists. Ask any 9/11 conspiracist what they think happened that day and they’ll all tell you they are just asking questions. It’s complete BS. Tucker Carlson is famous for this as well. And then there’s Nikki Minaj, who is “just asking questions” to her millions of followers making them think that Covid vaccines will make their balls swell.
To pretend that this is not a purposeful and effective tactic on the uneducated is ridiculous. And to ignore the context of those questions when claiming media bias is equally absurd.
Most people on the left believe all sorts of misinformation and lies such as:1) Thousands of unarmed blacks are killed by the police every year.2) Thousands of children die from Covid-19 every year.3) Only a few thousand enter the country illegally and almost all by airports.4) Antifa is mostly peaceful or a myth5) Dozens of police were killed on Jan 6 by radical facists.6) Trump's agreement 6 months ago forced Biden to give up airbases so we couldn't get the Americans out.
Can you please provide one example of a prominent left wing figure spreading any of these?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Then, of course, there was the old “good people on both sides” narrative. It was as effective as it was misleading and out-of-context. Agreed, context matters.
Yes, context certainly does, which is exactly why the good people on both sides statement was so offensive.
The controversy over Charlottesville began well before the rally because of all the right wing militia and white supremacist groups that were planning to attend. David Duke was a scheduled speaker and Richard Spencer was involved in the planning. This wasn’t some random grass roots people from the neighborhood type of event.
Then there were the chants of “Jews will not replace us” among the horrific scenes of that rally followed by the murder of Heather Hyer.
This was the context coming in to Trump’s press conference.
So how did Trump approach the situation? Did he show up ready to calm everything down? No, he showed up guns blazing towards the “alt-left” making sure to forcefully condemn them while paying lip service in his condemnations towards the right. That’s when the good people on both sides comment came out, which was absurd cause like I already pointed out, the only people involved were white supremacists. These “very fine people” he was talking about were a complete fabrication.
Then there’s the virtually countless, negative speculations and “backing the wrong horse”:MSM warned of a Trump caused war with North Korea. Wrong.MSM warned of a Trump caused war with Iran. Wrong.MSM warned of a Trump caused recession. Wrong.MSM anticipated that the Muller investigation would lead to Trump’s impeachment. Wrong.MSM made a darling of Michael Avenatti. Wrong.MSM made a darling of Gov. Cuomo. Wrong.
You’re trying to justify media bias by claiming they got predictions wrong. That’s not only not how that works, but that’s also misrepresenting what these networks were actually doing. The news media reports in the present, so they can only work with the information they have available at that time.
Let’s just look at your first example, “warned of Trump caused war with NK”… well duh, Trump was literally saying publicly that he would blow up the whole country if they made any more threats. To argue that the media should not have been concerned about a nuclear war being started by a president so childish that he’s going to make these kind of statements on Twitter is absurd. If Biden did that tomorrow you would lose your mind.
can you please provide some examples of MSM holding Biden to account before the election?
Provide one example of something Biden should have been held accountable for which the media failed and I will be happy to give my thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
This would be essentially synonymous with the term "effect," right?
For the most part.
Perhaps you could be a bit more specific then that. Would time begin at the same point as the first cause, or would time have begun before the first cause?
That’s as specific as I can be, anything further would be pure baseless speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Law and order. It isn't just a slogan on a hat, bud. It every person's responsibility.
Right, law and order. Because that’s what every parent who lives in extreme poverty and gang violence thinks about when they take their children for a walk down the street as they pass by decapitated heads hanging from street lights… ‘I have to wait my turn like everyone else’.
So for those who don’t wait their turn, well those people are criminals for fleeing with their children and must be held to account. Cause having those people come here is the biggest problem we face. That and of course our elections being stolen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
But to assume your premise— if Trump was properly held to account, Obama clearly was not— he let the banks off easy after the Great Recession, the “red line” in Syria, Trump’s “children in cages”…
Let’s use the kids in cages example. There were two elements to this, the building of the facilities and the separation of the children.
The cages were built in 2014 as a way of dealing with a crisis where we saw a sudden and sustained cascade of migrants coming to the border which our facilities were not built to handle, so they built them in an emergency and they were built for everyone.
Under Obama (as well as Bush, Clinton, etc.) kids were separated from their parents when officials had reason to believe the child was in danger or when the parent was prosecuted for a crime. That’s common sense.
Then came Trump.
Under Trump, he decided that he would prosecute every single illegal border crossing, thereby separating every single child from their parents, and did so figuring we had these cages here so they would be a perfect place to house them. This had never been done before. And as much as Trump pretended he was doing nothing different, he also admitted many times that he was doing it for deterrence purposes. Consistency in his lying was never a concern.
These two things are not even close to being the same thing. The Trump freak out had nothing to do with the mere fact that some kids got separated, it was the purposeful, cruel, calculated, systematic separation of kids that made everyone freak out.
So did any of this matter to the right wing pundits? No, of course not. They just claimed fake news and argued that Obama did it too. He didn’t.
But here we are, talking about bias in the media in part because of it. Facts matter. Context matters. Yet every argument I have ever heard claiming the media was unfair to Trump is built on false equivalences just like this one.
I do recall him being asked what ice cream he preferred by one of our many “hard-hitting, gotcha journalists.”
It’s called a honeymoon phase, every president experiences one, except Trump. Why - because they just hated Trump? Well, I’m sure him lying overtly to the media since literal day one and branding the media to his followers as the enemy of the people may have had something to do with that. Again, actions have consequences. You cannot credibly argue that Trump was treated unfairly without taking his actions into account.
And even beyond that, the political right really likes to pretend the ice cream question was serious, it wasn’t. It was really a joke about Trump making reference to the fact that we finally have a normal human being in the White House. That would be inappropriate under normal circumstances, but there weren’t normal circumstances because Trump wasn’t normal. You can’t disregard that fact to claim media bias.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
When the policies get presented to the public, they'll filter it through their tribal biases, primarily their race.This always happens.
Which is completely irrelevant to the question of what government policy should be. But I at least thank you for making it crystal clear that you have no philosophical grounding to anything you argue.
It's an irrelevant tangent to talk about purely theoretical questions involving systemic racism, so your question isn't worth answering.
And proven yet again.
It’s not possible to have a conversation about what anything should be without relying on your core values to ground your position, so it’s awfully telling when someone refuses to discuss their core values.
You don’t really believe your own BS and/or you are not secure enough in them to put them out there. You want to argue your beliefs but you don’t want to defend them.
Again, provide an argument proving that systemic racism exists, or else you don't have one lol.
That’s not the topic of our conversation genius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Then I guess I will see you in English 101 because your choice of words required clarification (i.e. something that wasn't produced can be a product).
I’m just going to leave this here.
prod·uct
/ˈprädəkt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale. "food products"
2. a thing or person that is the result of an action or process.
If the universe has a beginning, or the existence of the universe has a cause, the existence of time would also have a cause.
We’ve been through this already.
First of all I’ve already made my position clear that there is no basis to assert that the universe had a cause.
Second and more importantly, a cause, by definition, requires time in order for the word to apply. In the absence of time the word cause has no meaning, so your presumption is incoherent.
I don’t understand why that’s so complicated.
would time begin at the point of the cause, or would time begin at the point of the effect?
It would just begin. Causes and effects would take place inside of it, as far as we could possibly deduce. What our deductions are worth is another question…
Created:
Posted in:
You seem to argue that; did you get your statement reversed by accident?
Yes, thank you for the correction.
I get it— you don’t like Trump or his presidency. But almost half the country did, and an appreciable number thought he was the most effective president in their lifetimes. Mainstream media neither reflected that fact nor even comprehended it.
It’s not their job to reflect it, their job is to cover what happens and hold power to account, which is exactly what they were doing.
I agree with you that there was some bias and that they made everything he did look terrible, but I also believe he earned that every step of the way. In fact I might even go a step further and say they didn’t make him look bad enough. Trump truly was so much worse than any network could have possibly made him look, to capture the true danger this man posed they would have had to make themselves look like conspiracy theorists, they weren’t willing to go that far.
Just one small example to make this point, Bill Maher said for years the man was not going to leave and got nothing but criticized as being over the top, then came Jan 6th.
The coverage should have been worse. But so many Americans love to see themselves as above it all, so they pretend it’s just a both sides thing when sometimes it really isn’t.
As far as the Biden point, I think you’re correct that the coverage would be worse if it were Trump, but let’s not pretend they’re giving Biden a free pass here. I consume a lot of left wing media and have seen almost nothing positive said about Afghanistan.
That important point aside, if you think that Newsmax has no left wing counterpart, then I don’t think you’re aware of Democracy Now.
Democracy Now is a 60 minute program, Newsmax is an entire news network. Newsmax has more viewers in 2 days than Democracy Now has in an entire month. They’re not comparable.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
I'm talking about policy for humans. Therefore, that policy needs to take into account human nature.
Policies take into account that which is relevant to the policy itself. Please provide one example of a policy in which an individual’s race should play a role in how the policy applies to them.
What annoys me is that your entire claim to fame here and rebuttal to charges of being a racist is that race should play a role in government policy, yet you absolutely refuse to talk about government policy. That’s absurd."Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term, so that's a non-starter: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .
What a ridiculous response.
You got so triggered by the word racist that you completely ignored the point I was making and linked to a whole discussion about the word racist, even though I used the word in the context to explain what others are calling you to criticize your response to it.
Wow.
All you're doing is proving that your argument doesn't have any facts or data.Provide them or concede the point.
I talked about why it’s pointless to go back and forth with you about facts in response to your ask that I provide them to prove systemic racism, something I have not alleged here because it is not the topic of our conversation.
The conversation we are and have been having is whether race should play a role in government policy. That’s primarily a philosophical debate, and one we need to have before we can get into a fact battle regarding systemic racism. Why? Because our philosophical positions will determine how we interpret the facts so it’s pointless to move on without resolving our differences there.
Do you understand?
Does you wife see through this posturing?Sorry, I meant does your waifu anime pillow see through this posturing?
Uh……. God one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So to be clear, an uncaused cause would not be a product of time then?
Yes, it would be.
So are we going to spend the next few days arguing over the definition of “product”, or are you going to address the central question this conversation is supposedly about - that you cannot have a cause, regardless of whether that cause itself was caused or uncaused, outside of time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
today’s TV media and most of the major print media have lost their journalistic professionalism and are now merely the media arm of the DNC. If you disagree, why?
Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing. The media’s responsibility is the former, not the latter.
Let’s start with Trump. You didn’t say specifically, but you paint a picture of a guy who’s not that bad and yet just can’t get a fair shake by the media.
The media treated him terribly because that’s how he acted. Trump as a human being is everything we teach our children not to be. He’s a narcissist, a pathological liar, childish, petulant, ignorant, and vile. His literal first day in office was marked by telling (through his press secretary that we are all paying for) a blatant lie so easily provably false all because it hurt his ego. He would continue to call the news media the enemy of the people and break one presidential norm after the other culminating in the absolute pathetic figure we see today who just two days ago sent a letter to Georgia demanding that they declare him the winner of the election that took place 10 months ago.
None of this is normal, so there is no reason to expect he would have been treated normally. It never ceases to amaze me how folks on the right act as if there is no connection between actions and consequences.
Regarding the overall point here, the news has most definitely gotten more biased. I think part of this is the natural evolution of media but it’s mostly because of the internet. Unlike in the old days, you no longer need to be vetted to have your own platform. Any point of view you want to consume is out there so the main networks now have to complete with extreme voices from both sides. I don’t see this changing.
But today we have two sides to our media that are not the same. You say the media treats Biden with kid gloves. I don’t agree with that, but what I will point out is the fact that left leaning media criticizes Biden far more than right wing media ever criticized Trump, so if you really care about this I have no idea why you have nothing to say about that. Just a few days ago a Newsmax anchor went on a viral tangent booting his guest right of the show for having the temerity to say something negative about Trump (and it wasn’t even a serious critique). It’s gotten to the point where anti vaxers now have an advocate on the number one news show on cable. There is nothing like this happening on the left.
So is there bias on both sides? Of course, but the two sides are not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
By answering questions put to us by the other. Only liars and demagogues dodge questions
Awesome, so I guess that means you’re working on your response to post 90
For example, why was not a single person charged with rebellion, treason, sedition, or insurrection?
Because the law is not set up to deal with mobs and/or punish mob mentality.
No one is claiming that thousands of people all got together and planned who was going to beat police officers, who was going to break the windows, who was going to climb in, and who would make their way to the house and senate floors. That’s the wonderful thing about mobs, everyone gets to hide behind everyone else. The strength, threat and overall impact of a mob is not the product of any one individual, so you cannot hold any individual accountable for it.
But beyond that, why are you so obsessed with this one argument? Once again, the US Capitol was breached causing Congress to have to evacuate the building during the certification of the US Election. Why do you not care about that? You claim you’re not a partisan hack, but every time this is pointed out to you the only thing you’ve got in response are whataboutisms of the left. That’s the definition of a partisan hack.
It’s also worth noting that I’ve never made the claim that this was an inserrection, sedition, or treason, and as far as I can tell neither has anyone in this thread. You are not having an honest conversation, this is just a pathetic attempt to own the libs. Perhaps you’d be better served having an actual rational dialog with actual people who can then in turn give you their actual perspectives.
And why are you liberals ignoring the difference between your evaluations of the Jan 6th crowd and the Antifa/BLM riots? They expose your bias.
They’re not. You can find troves of examples of Democrats speaking out against the riots, including a speech by Joe Biden making his position clear. NYC Democrats just nominated a cop to be their next mayor. You think the left is so crazy because the crazy are the only ones you pay attention to.
Contrast this with the right. Name one prominent republican who is speaking out against this. Hint: there are none. The dear leader of the party clearly sides with them, right wing news anchors have made those arrested out to be the victims, and the party has stood firm in the way of even investigating it. The two sides are not equal.
But here’s the thing… none of that matters in this thread. You are the one who stated loudly, clearly, and proudly that when you look at January 6th you see Trump supporters taking selfies with police officers and officers holding the doors for them as they were invited in to the Capitol. That was your post. That’s what we’re talking about. This discussion isn’t about Antifa and/or BLM. It’s about your claim. About your viewpoint that you chose to express… on a debate site. Are you ever going to defend it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
When I say it’s a product of time I’m not saying that time itself created it. I’m saying it could only be the case within the framework of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
That is an assumption based on philosophical naturalism. You then forced your naturalistic presupposition onto my argument by forcing me to accept that "we know of nothing beyond the universe that exists." I reject that presupposition.
It’s an assumption based on logic and reason, which brings us back to the beginning. Your evidence for god is nothing more than blind assertions and special pleading supporting the idea that there is a god, which is then used to claim that the uncaused cause is likely a god, which is then used to justify your blind assertions and why god gets a special set of rules (special pleading). It’s just one big circle.
Obviously you will disagree as I will with your disagreement, so we can at least agree on that.
The question you haven't answered yet is this - how can something be a product of something else if it is unproduced ("uncaused")?
If we we’re talking about an uncaused something, then, for the sake of argument here, it would not necessarily need to be a product of time.
But we’re not talking about an uncaused something, we’re talking about an uncaused cause. That by definition means an effect must follow.
I don’t understand what you are getting tripped up over here. If someone out of the blue asked you “what is the cause” and you don’t know what they’re talking about, your first question in response would be “cause of what?”. Because you cannot coherently answer the question without knowing what the alleged cause… caused.
If you still take issue with this then answer this question… can something be a cause without something else being an effect of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That is your biased interpretation. I have evidence that the crowd WAS friendly and festive, you want to focus on one tiny thing and interpret the entire crowd by it, ignoring all the other evidence.
Ok, so you have evidence that the crowd was friendly and festive, we have evidence that the crowd was lawless and dangerous. How do we resolve this difference?
I trumped you with evidence you could not address. And as always, you used Ad-hom is a debate tool. You are well know on this board as a hack. One who runs away from questions and is quick to be hyocritical.
Are you any different? If so, you can demonstrate that by responding to post 90, which must have slipped by you.
Created: