Total posts: 5,890
-->
@949havoc
That kind of argument is the notion that the fetus is a parasite - nonsense.
Like I said, that is a debate for another thread. Do you have any response to the actual point my post was making?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So which is it? Does the vaccine keep you safe or no?
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
I literally just talked about how the situation is nuanced and your response is to frame the entire debate into a yes or a no.
The debate includes vaccine efficacy, individuals who cannot take the vaccines, the focusing of our precious medical resources to help the sick, the development of variants, and the economic impact of rising cases. Let me know when you’d like to have a conversation that includes the entire picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i suppose so, but this judge was not elected and serves a lifetime appointment and they went against the will of an entire state. Is that concerning?
We’re the rules followed? If not, then we have an illegitimate decision which is very concerning. If they were, then we get the government we deserve.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The optics on this are so, so bad on multiple levels, most particularly undermining the year long claim that being vaccinated was supposed to keep you safe and now Biden is saying the unvaccinated are putting vaccinated people at risk.
The optics on this are only bad to those who are unwilling or unable to understand the full picture. Two things can be true at the same time, it’s called nuance.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
If Democrats want to be so in-your-face insistent that a woman has a right to the privacy of her body… then any person, male, female, whatever, has the right to refuse another invasive procedure, a vaccine.
Setting aside that you do in fact have the right to refuse getting vaccinated…
These two things are still not comparable. The freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else’s nose, so by refusing to get vaccinated and thereby making yourself a greater risk to others, the rest of us have a legitimate right to ensure your exposure to others is limited.
There is nothing like this when it comes to abortion. The issue there is whether the fetus has a greater right to the mother’s body than the mother. That’s a debate for another thread, but it’s an entirely different conversation.
‘My body my choice’ therefore only applies to the latter, so those who have who have tried to weaponize this talking point against vaccines but don’t support it against abortion are not only breathtakingly hypocritical, but are also just wrong factually and self defeating philosophically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Something needs to change. The judges have too much power.
The biggest flaw in our system of government is that it uses human beings to operate it and make decisions. I’m not sure I can offer a solution to that problem.
Someone will always get the final say, and that someone will always be able to impose an unjust verdict. The only thing we can do is support politicians who care about the basic values our system of government was founded on.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Tony’s NIH funded Gain of Function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology which introduced pathogens like Covid into animals for research.
The funding literally stipulated that it was not to be used for gain of function research.
The funding was also renewed in 2018, while Trump was president. So if we want to play this blame by chain of association game, why stop with Fauci? You know if it happened under the Biden adminstration you would be blaming Biden for it.
And all of this of course assumes that COVID came from the lab in Wuhan, which has yet to be proven but why let that get in the way?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The nation is such a disaster right now.Afghanistan was a catastrophe...The Southern Border is in shambles with illegals pouring in...Covid positive illegals are being let go into the nation...Covid is still a problem just like it always was regardless of who was in the White House.
Other than Afghanistan, all of this was happening under Trump and you didn't give a damn about it then.
Illegal immigration under Trump rose to the highest levels we had seen in 50 years.
And the COVID hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. The political right doesn't believe in doing literally anything that will slow down the spread, unless they can either blame the Democrats or use it as an excuse to keep the scary brown people out. *Then* all of a sudden COVID is a big deal.
It doesn't really matter who the president is now, but Trump absolutely single handedly made this pandemic worse. The day he decided to tell the nation he wasn't going to put on a mask... Just like that masks were now politicized. It's not an accident that vaccination rates correlate precisely with support for Trump. He did this. No one else.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is there anything Biden could have done to make the withdrawal more optic friendly?
He should have slowed down the withdrawal so he could have adapted to the circumstances. They didn't anticipate the complete collapse of the Afghan military.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Never heard of Ivermectum before. According to Google it is an anti-parasitic medication. Who is suggesting that it be used to treat coronavirus?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Do you think Faucci deserves blame for people dying in a pandemic?You have to ask? Yes.
Could you elaborate? What did he do that contributed to the deaths of Americans?
He promised to get all Americans out. Fail.
Ok, so you began with "[Biden] promised to get us out of a war, and failed" and are now moving the goal posts to "Biden failed because he failed to get all Americans out". Noted.
I realize there may be Americans who don't want to get out. , and not much can be done about that. But, private individuals are doing the DOS job, getting Americans who want to get out out, and DOS is trying to block that. Why?
Did you bother googling it to find out?
“Without personnel on the ground, we can’t verify the accuracy of manifests, the identities of passengers, flight plans, or aviation security protocols,”
I'm sure your next response will be to criticize the administration for evacuating personnel before getting Americans out to which I would point out that this withdrawal was announced months ago and all Americans were told to get out then, so what exactly is your issue, besides a desperate search for anything you can find to slander Biden?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
How about Gay marriage for starters.
You implied that some are using the "gun barrel of govt" to shove their opinions down others throats. There is nothing about gay marriage that fits into your narrative. Do you have anything that does?
You just want to argue the obvious for the sake of argument
No, I'm pushing back against what you think is obvious that I find to be nonsense, and doing so with the (pessimistic) hope at least some progress can be made on our differences. This is a debate site. That's literally the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
When I talked about pushing their beliefs onto others I’m talking about through legislation, not trying to convince others through conversation. So to answer your question, of course that person should warn me.
But more importantly, your example is not comparable. Like I said earlier, it's not that we're having different experiences, it's that theists are attributing a cause to their experiences that can't even be shown to exist.
BTW what's a pleb?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
And yet, a preventable pandemic wasn't. Sounds like Faucci's hands are not exactly bloodless.
What is this supposed to mean? Do you think Faucci deserves blame for people dying in a pandemic?
2021: Biden - promised to get us out of a war, and failed.
Last I checked we were out of war
Americans left behind enemy lines in both cases.
There are Americans in every country on earth, did you really think every one was going to get out? This is such a tired right wing talking point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Pushing beliefs, is precisely how a rational and ethical person would act, with that knowledge/belief.
A rational person would also rely on evidence to make their case
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Having an opinion and using the gun barrel of govt to shove it down your throat are two entirely different things
And where is the latter happening?
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Yeah man I'm sure states having stupid hospital infrastructure makes a flu with a 99.4% survival rate (assuming the official statistics aren't manipulated, which they are) such a super deadly disease.
That’s why I didn’t bother with statistics, I gave you very simple facts, but even that was too much to process so instead you diverted your attention to blaming the “stupid hospital infrastructure”.
Let’s try this again. You said Covid is “just flu+”, thereby implying this is not serious. Do you believe that a disease that causes the ICU beds in multiple states as well as their morgues to overflow is serious? Yes or No?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If you just want to be left alone then why are you offering your political opinions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
This is sort of the whole point here, you atheists claim you witness nothing, so what skin do you even have in the game? why are you even at the trial to begin with?
We’re all witnessing the same things, theists just claim that they can explain them so atheists are saying go ahead and substantiate your explanation.
To the extent that theists claim they experience that which atheists are not, the atheists are saying what good are your experiences to me or anyone else? That’s rhetorical of course. It’s not worth anything.
So if you cannot substantiate your explanation and your experiences are worth nothing to anyone else then why do you think you get to push your beliefs into the rest of society?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Why do you ask?
Theists have a tendency to suggest that atheists all saying the same thing gives strength to the theist position somehow. I’m pointing out how that is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I understood your argument perfectly well, but instead of telling you what a stupid argument it is I decided to pretend for a moment that I’m the one who didn’t understand so that you could enlighten me. Instead you gave me exactly what I knew you would… nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
this forum is full of atheists all spouting the same nonsense
Imagine a trial where the witnesses on one side are all telling the same story and the witnesses on the other are all saying something completely different.
What would you infer from that?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, his point is that vaccinations give you immunity.
That somehow doesn’t strike me as a Greyparrot topic, but if you say so…
Created:
-->
@949havoc
You may not recall, but the history is clear and all it requires is asking a few questions.The 1918 H1N1 pandemic, aka, influenza. Flu.
Our medical capabilities are a little bit better today than they were in 1918.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is there a point to your thread?
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
COVID is literally just Flu+
3 states have no ICU beds left and all have ordered refrigerator trucks to store their dead bodies because the morgues are full. I don’t recall the last time the flu did that.
And this is despite at least a third of their populations being vaccinated, which has reduced hospitalizations and deaths for that part of the population by over 90%.
What do you have against reality?
Created:
Posted in:
Really, what is hate speech to you? Why do you think one side engages in it more than the other?
From the OP:
This is about cracking down on hate speech and in particular, speech that can lead to or incite violence, or misinformation that is literally killing people.
As far as whether one side engages in it more than the other, can you give me examples of the left’s hate speech? Let me guess… anti racism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Can you please paraphrase what I just said to you, because I don’t think you read a word of it.no.
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But using them to incite people to hatred. I am not saying this is intentional - but that is the impact of those words.
Which is exactly the problem. It’s not the fault of those calling out racism that the people they are talking to can’t tell the difference between hateful speech and being called out for hateful speech.
I understand that people are far too loose with the word and many people being called racist are really not, but to pretend these two things are the same is absurd.
One person doing the wrong thing does not ipso facto translate to a generalisation to every conservative.
You do know what an example is right?
Laws are quite different over here. We don't have free speech. We have laws against Hate speech. However hate speech in our laws is defined by the Left and only relates to things that anti-progressive.
I don’t know anything about Australian politics so I am only speaking from an American point of view. I made clear in the OP that I was referring to speech which leads to violence. I’m not talking about anything else. I am also not talking about laws. This is a cultural issue where the right claims the left is trying to silence them, the US would not allow government officials to engage in this which is part of why I take no issue with what’s going on here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
they were let in, if you dont want people destroying the congress, dont let them in
Can you please paraphrase what I just said to you, because I don’t think you read a word of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
You're going down a rabbit hole of heuristic fiction when both of these groups are composed entirely of individuals.
Every group that’s ever been analyzed is composed entirely of individuals, that’s why we don’t assess groups in the same way we assess individuals. So what part of my OP needs correcting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
My original intent was only to make a comment about the willingness of the Left to engage in hypocrisy in order to fulfill their goals, not to expound upon the current revolution happening in our society.
So the left is filled with hypocrisy. Got it. Thank you for finally making that clear as opposed to talking about the toppling western civilization and totalitarianism.
Created:
Posted in:
Even if people on the right deserve to be banned more often (I don’t concede this but for arguments sake) they could still be getting banned too much. You are saying basically that conservatives are being banned from social media because they are making hateful and nasty comments but they are too hateful and nasty to realize this.
I never argued that conservatives are nasty. The point I was making is that the nasty and hateful things getting many on the political right banned is not conservatism. My criticism of conservatives is the conflation of those two things in order to claim that they are somehow being victimized by the left, so your quote demonstrates the entire point of this thread.
Whether conservatives are being banned unfairly is a legitimate concern and discussion, if that’s the conversation we were having then I would have no reason to post this.
This is what makes me roll my eyes whenever Democrats say there is no voter fraud. Yes there is, and in the last verified instance of it you were the victims! I think what you and people who think the same as you tend to miss is that power always uses unpopular edge cases to roll things out at first. They to be make for banning discussion on election fraud in 2020 because the evidence simply does not show widespread voter fraud. But what if, in a future election, there really IS voter fraud?
When Democrats say there was no voter fraud they’re not being literal. You’re attacking a strawman. Democrats just get tired sometimes of having to include the word “widespread” in that sentence because they shouldn’t have to, it should be common sense that this is what they mean, especially after months of public debate.
The idea that they are banning discussion about voter fraud is nonsense and another example of conflating things that are entirely different. What democrats are saying is that if you are going to claim there was voter fraud then the burden is on you to provide evidence of your claim, and in the absence of evidence not only is there is no reason for anyone to take your claim seriously but it is irresponsible for anyone to give you a platform to spread your unfounded nonsense.
This is not unique to election fraud or the political right, this is how society has always worked. Would you support CNN booking Alex Jones so he can explain to the world why he believes Sandy Hook was a government hoax and that all the parents pretending to be grieving the loss of their children are really just actors? We both know the answer. The burden of proof is a real thing and it applies here just like anywhere else.
One of the good things about a democratic society is that everyone, even the people who have no social or economic power, get to speak their minds.
I think my previous comment about the burden of proof addresses this somewhat, as well as what I said to Wylted in post 23 (first two paragraphs). Feel free to respond to it.
My final point in this wall of text: realize that the elites in this country aren’t really your friend.
This is one of those types of comments I hear on the right all the time and it just makes me scratch my head. It’s also central to my point in this thread.
No one I am aware of supports what is happening out of some notion that those who are in control of what’s happening are friends of the left. If that’s how you see this then you are completely missing the entire public conversation… which is exactly what I was describing in the OP. To see things this way requires one to view all of this as, like I already describe, as a team sport. This isn’t about team or sides, it’s about what is right and what is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
If I start openly calling for the assassination of political figures will you still take that same position?Actually yes
Then we just have a fundamental disagreement on the responsibility a society has to protect itself. I understand the basic position, essentially you’re arguing it’s a slippery slope so you see your position as the greater protection, but that only works of you disregard the idea that we should base our decisions on logic and reasoned argument. I say if we give up on that we’ve already lost.
I'd also like you to expand on democracy requiring good faith. Why trust those in power, when we can see so many instances of power corrupting and real conspiracies. Such as the Tuskegee experiments. Why trust the oligarchs and family dynasties running America?
Trust describes one of two things; a state of mind or an action. As a state of mind no one is saying trust those in charge. We should always be skeptical and to the extent we give them our trust is to the extent they earn it. This is why we have divided power and institutions to hold people accountable.
As an action, we trust them because we have no other choice. Someone is going to call the shots within our society, so the only question is whether we get a say in it. We don’t get to create our politicians in a lab, we’re stuck choosing from those who apply for the job.
As much as I hated to see Donald Trump sworn in I recognized that we had no other choice. If I had the nuclear codes in my hand and the power to hand them to anyone I wanted I would have given them to him because that’s the system we have. It’s that system from which every force of stability in our society stems, and it’s that system that we put our trust in. But that system just like any other is only as good as the people running it, hence my original statement about the requirement of good faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What do you constitute as hate speech?Do you believe the Taliban should be on Twitter, where there organizations stand for conquering the world in a Muslim rule and making minorities live in fear is hate speech?orDo you think being a whiny little bitch counts as hate speech?
Like I said before, I’m referring to speech that incites violence.
No, I don’t think the Taliban should be on Twitter, but I don’t take a particularly strong opinion on it. That’s up to Twitter.
The problem with social media sites is that there is an implicit bias toward the left, not that the left is trying to censor Conservatives
That I agree with
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no its because they were let in, there was no pushing and shoving, the capital police did nothing
Got it. So I guess all that video footage of police officers getting beat with their own weapons, windows being smashed and people combing through them must have been from that other time congress had to evacuate the building because a mob attacked the US Capitol.
Ok Franklin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So one Democrat says it once and that = “Dems cried about” it?
BTW, you still haven’t shared where or when this occurred like I asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You’re using big words but saying nothing. You responded to a post attacking the left mostly by straw manning it to suggest that it believes among other things that opposing same sex marriage is hate speech, and your response was to imply that this somehow fits into a greater plan to topple our civilization. Can you please explain that in more than one sentence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I am actually differentiating here between free speech as a cultural thing and free speech as a law. When I say we should have a cultural acceptance of free speech, I still think platforms should be allowed to regulate it.
There is no such thing as cultural free speech, it’s an incoherent concept because it directly opposes itself. I think you missed the whole point of everything I just said. I expressed no approval for eliminating someone’s position, I talked about the fact that what you are calling the elimination of people’s opinions is actually a necessary component of free speech.
Again, you get to say whatever you want and the rest of us get to decide what we will say in response. That includes what we do with our money, so if I disagree with you to the point where I want to boycott your products or boycott any platform that allows you to maintain yours, that’s my right to free speech in action. You can disagree with the cumulative result, but you cannot claim to be against this principally and be for free speech.
I also think if you were being honest you can thi k of where these powers have already been abused. More than likely you'd agree if I showed you they also come down on leftists as well, albeit more quietly because it is the same group they pander to.
What you’re pointing to is one of the biggest problems within all of human society, and its central to this thread. I don’t know if there’s a name for it but I’d love to read up on it, anyway it’s the twisting of something into the opposite in order to claim you hold the same position of those you oppose. For example; the fascist dictator who wishes to destroy democracy so they can take power gets criticized as a threat to democracy, then turns around and plays the victim thereby claiming it’s everyone else who is destroying democracy, thereby painting his efforts as necessary to save democracy against everyone else are “really” the fascist dictators.
The reality is that a properly functioning democracy requires good faith by those who are in or close to power, and it also requires the rest of us to be able to spot the difference (That’s why accepting the results of an election for example is so incredibly important).
If one side abuses their power then the other side has no good options since the only responsible reaction will almost always fall into the territory where it can be painted as an abuse of power itself. I think that’s exactly what we ate seeing here. Trump gave us no good options, so here we are.
However I think ultimately we need to realize that living in a free and open society comes with certain risks that won't be eliminated. Risks such as the ability to propagandist the people.
If I start openly calling for the assassination of political figures will you still take that same position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
No, the claim from conservatives is that they are being unfairly targeted, ie the rules are not being applied equally. If this is true, of course leftists wouldn’t be getting censored even if they were behaving just as badly . I don’t know who is more hateful. I know what my bias says, but I have no empirical evidence and you don’t either.
I don’t personally, which is why I invoked the FBI who have deemed right wing extremism as the greatest threat to the safety of the public, including over Muslim extremism. I didn’t think it would be heavily contested but I forgot the climate I am posting this in.
Trump is a political liability so I think it’s actually a good thing for my politics…but yeah I do think it’s an extremely weird Overton window if it doesn’t have room for the opinions of someone who won a presidential election
Do you think Donald Trump’s words played a major role in the Capitol attacks?
If yes, what should be the proper response?
If no… wow we’re going to need a whole new thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the people who stormed the capital were let in
Because the Capitol police lost control of the situation. That should have been evident to you after seeing the mob push, shove, and beat their way through them and then smash the windows and climb in, then open the doors themselves to let their fellow rioters in.
Or did you miss all of that because the right wing propaganda networks would never show it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Take the word "homophobic" or the name "bigot" or the term "racist". These three words are thrown at the Conservative now whenever the Conservative simply explains what they are agreeing with or disagreeing with.
I agree that the left throws these words around far too frequently and often makes no real attempt to understand the point of view of the person they hurl them at. But you cannot seriously claim that a term which is used to call someone out on their hatred, is hatred.
I think a perfect example of what I’m pointing to is Candice Owens getting turned away by a Covid testing facility, and then turning around claiming she was denied service because of her politics. That sentiment was then echoed on Fox News, and the narrative continues to on.
This narrative is however, absolutely absurd. She was denied service because she is spreading misinformation about COVID vaccines and encouraging people to not only not take them but to not wear masks. Again, this isn’t about tax policy, this is about public safety in the middle of a pandemic. There is nothing political about this, or at least there shouldn’t be. But that’s exactly what the right does… politicize an apolitical issue and then claim anyone who acts against it is acting against their politics. How ridiculous.
It’s a medical clinic fighting back against Covid and refusing to serve someone who is largely responsible for the mindset that’s spreading the disease. If you can’t see how this is not about her politics you are either blind or you need a mental health examination.
So anyway that’s my example of the day. You clearly believe the right is being censored for their political beliefs. Can you provide something, anything to support it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Theory about conservatives: they are just shitty people who are blinded by tribalism
Why are you so easily triggered? Every time I tell you what I see when I hear your arguments or those of conservatives generally and go into painstaking detail to explain why I see it, all you take out of it is that I’m being insulting. Why not just focus on the content of the message and correct the errors?
You need to establish a definition of “hate speech”, secure agreement that this should be bannable, and then provide empirical evidence that one side is consistently engaged in it more, otherwise your position is not worth of serious consideration
You know exactly what I’m talking about, so I don’t know why you need me to provide you with examples, but we can start with Trump being banned from social media as a result of his role in the attacks on the US Capitol.
And as far as which side is engaging in it more… are you really suggesting the left is claiming it’s being censored by the right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Obviously social media sites like Facebook and Twitter should be allowed to censor whatever speech they want, but you can't say the left does not attack free speech. (Not everyone or most in the left, but a large swath) .
Broadly speaking, sure I can. Free speech means the government cannot silence you, it does not mean everyone else in society has to sit back and listen. Just as you have a right to say whatever you want I have the right to criticize it, and if enough people feel the same way then people will not want you on their platforms.
You can disagree with the criticisms and subsequent consequences, you cannot argue that others should not have the rights that they do to react. *That* is what opposing free speech actually looks like.
The problem is those things are very ambiguous and the right just sees an opening for the left to exploit the ambiguity of those terms.
That’s fine. You can be concerned about the opening this creates, it’s a legitimate concern. But an opening for wrong doing and actual wrong doing are not the same thing.
Hell if the right regains control of institutions and government, and they will because the pendulum is always swinging, than they can exploit those things.
That’s exactly the point and problem. Like you said, it creates the opening, which is why no matter what side you’re on this is and will always be a very difficult issue. For months social media companies sat back and allowed their platforms to be used as vessels to spread violent propaganda culminating in an attack of the US Capitol by our own citizens. So now when these companies react in the only responsible way they could have possibly reacted and the rest of us proceed with a greater awareness of the danger this issue creates, the political right says “they”, and not the speech that everyone is reacting to, are the real targets.
So what is the correct response? How does the left push back against the climate that made this happen without conservatives claiming they are being targeted for being conservatives? I’m all ears.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
If you're going to dodge the questions Hosea, it's smarter to not respond.
My god dude, learn to read. It was literally the next sentence.
“Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter?
Yes, the merits of every study matter first and foremost”
And why were those studies bogus genius? Could it be that because they ALL confirmed the tobacco industry's position?
I’m really starting to think you’re just trolling, no way this is serious.
The studies are not bogus because they confirmed the tobacco industry’s position, they are bogus because we know not only that they are wrong but we also know why they are wrong.
I know you would really love to dodge this entire thread because all of your original statements were nonsense talking points you didn’t bother to put any thought or research into, but I’m not going down this stupid path of debating tobacco studies with you as if everyone on earth doesn’t already know what happened there. Make your point or move on.
First you claim I'm not trying to understand what you're saying, when I show you that I am, you ooze to a different claim of me not responding. You argue dishonestly, but I will beat anyway.
Why do I need to explain this to you?
Quoting someone does not mean you paid any attention to what they are saying nor does it mean your response addresses anything they said. Here, let me illustrate:
Person A: “Joe Biden is a terrible president cause he doesn’t care about Americans abroad”
Person B: “The sky is blue”
You see how that works?
We’re not talking about human nature.Sure we are. Politics is human nature.
We’re not talking about politics. Clearly, you don’t pay attention.
There is no such thing as “right” when we’re talking about human nature...There is such a thing as "right" when we're talking about studies.This conversation began by you talking about studies that confirm leftists positions and how they can’t always be right.Your "they" above correctly refers to the studies, not the human nature. Dishonesty is a piss-poor logical tool....and your example was tobacco studies, which has nothing to do with human natureBut smoking does.
Ok, I’m just going to stop here. I had forgotten why conversing with you was so pointless. Thoughtful conversation tends to include points which have a beginning, a middle, and an end. That’s why we tend to respond in paragraphs. But apparently you don’t have the bandwidth to soak it up, so you break everything into individual sentences stripping the point out of its context and completely distorting what the other person is saying. That’s why you don’t even know what this conversation is about.
I’m done, if you want to keep going you can have at it. Good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Things like individual liberty and inalienable rights would be included in "Western civilization."
Thanks for that. Now can you explain how individual liberty at risk of being toppled?
Created:
Posted in:
One of the things I take issue with in our current political discourse is the propensity of self identified conservatives to claim that the left just wants to silence their voices. This is or at least was mostly in reference to social media but seems to have grown quite a bit over the past few months and has become a widely accepted narrative in conservatives circles.
This narrative is of course false. The left is not trying to silence conservatives. No one is getting banned from Twitter over disputes about tax policy. This is about cracking down on hate speech and in particular, speech that can lead to or incite violence, or misinformation that is literally killing people. It just so happens to be the case that the vast majority of hate speech in our political discourse these days is coming from the right, to the point where the FBI has even taken notice.
These two very different things should be easy to distinguish, so why is it so difficult for so many?
I think the reason why is because right wing politics centers itself around culture issues and tribalism, leading to a sense of community in right wing circles that doesn’t exist on the left. But a sense of community in politics distorts the entire point. Politics is supposed to be about solving problems, not which side are you rooting for.
What this ultimately culminates in is a conflation of political beliefs with a sense of self identity, and that is where the issue here comes to light. When you tangle your sense of self identity to your beliefs, anything that opposes your beliefs is perceived as an attack on you personally, causing a very distorted view of every disagreement you observe. When another “fellow conservative” is banned from a platform all you see is that they banned a conservative, not what that conservative was actually banned for. And when it happens over and over again, now it’s undeniable that they’re just banning conservatives. The justification is not worthy of consideration because there’s no sense in looking closer at something that is obvious from afar, but it’s only obvious because of the tribalism present from the start.
Obviously conservatives will disagree. So what am I getting wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Don't expect hypocrisy to stop the Left from their crusade to topple Western civilization.
Could you please explain what “topple western civilization” means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I care about an idiot who condemns Trump for issuing EO's and then issuing more when he takes office. Biden is the one who said EO are used by dictators. By his own standard, he is a dictator.
In other words, no you don’t actually care about how many executive orders Biden has issued as you originally tried to argue. Thank you for making that clear.
So your real concern is hypocrisy. Ok. Well since you care so much about hypocrisy, please tell me your opinion on Trump declaring that he would eliminate the national debt in 8 years, only to turn right around and take a $585B deficit and take it over $1T by 2020 (before the factoring COVID). Looking forward to hearing it.
Every two-bit dictator can rationalize his governments oppression with smarmy semantics.
Just as every partisan hack can use semantics to pretend their political opposition is so terrible when all they’re doing is governing.
You have no point. They are being persecuted with no due process, no charges, and no speedy trials. They are political prisoners.
They have lawyers representing them in federal courts around the country. No due process? No charges? WTF are you talking about?
Every point here proves how brainwashed you are by the MSM. Worse, it's whataboutism. You have to spin a lie to claim Trump said those things, Biden is an incoherent idiot and no "interpretation" is needed to demonstrate he's a senile fool.
Trump literally said those things out loud and on tape. The entire footage of the entire conversations are readily available for anyone who cares to watch them. Claiming that this is “proof” of being brainwashed by the MSM is just plain stupid. Or more likely, it’s projection. You have nothing in depth to say, all you present are talking points the right loves to throw around completely void of any thoughtful rational backing, so this is clearly how you form your opinions.
What makes the comparison clear is that all you need to paint Donald Trump as incoherent is to watch him speak. The man has a third grade vocabulary, repeats himself constantly, frequently changes the subject mid thought, and never has anything deep or thoughtful to say. But making Biden seem incoherent requires a super cut of all his greatest gaffes. There’s no comparison there, unless all you ever watch are the super cuts which goes to show why you think I’m the one being manipulated. Again, it’s projection.
Created: