Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If someone steals a blade of grass from their neighbor's yard, the value their neighbor places on that blade of grass is profoundly relevant.
The fact that you are comparing ones culture and family history to a blade of grass should make you pause about what you’re really arguing.
I’m talking about judging the level of theft with what one individual has to say about it. If I break into someone’s house and steal a million dollars, I am not considered any less dangerous or heinous because the guy who’s house it was turned out to have a billion dollars stashed away somewhere and didn’t care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why would you want to "educate people about it"?Doesn't that just teach people how to be racists?
Are we really arguing about this?
Dictionaries don’t teach people how to be racist, they teach people what words mean. The educational process includes that and looking back at our history. I don’t think you’re going to suggest we stop teaching our history of racism too.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
a process that was never intended to be on partisan lines like how the founding fathers saw?a process that wouldn't be built on hatred for a president and a legally flawed impeachment case?
As in a process that doesn’t follow the same rules and standards of a criminal trial, and for good reason... we’re not talking about the same type of punishment.
And spare me your Fox News talking points. You don’t have to hate Trump to see plainly and clearly that he is responsible for what happened on Jan 6th. And also to know that no other president in the history of this country has ever been held to such a low standard on any category by which we would judge an elected official.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bets on predictit.org have now hit rock bottom on every line on impeachment. I won't be able to make any money on this :(
Republican fecklessness is to easily predictable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ok so Trump is being charged as the “former” President. Where in the Constitution does it say “former” Presidents can be convicted in the Senate?
It states that president’s can be impeached. Check.
It then states that the senate has the *sole power* to try *all* impeachments.
This isn’t complicated. And even if it were, after playing this little semantic game you are resorting to we can then move on to using common sense. The framers put impeachment as a means to hold office holders accountable politically. Please explain why they would have made it “against the rules” to try someone for high crimes and misdemeanors merely because the clock ran out. Please explain how your semantic interpretation would stop someone from resigning right before the final vote in order to take away the senate’s constitutional right to disqualify them from running again.
No the whole Supreme Court gets to decided whether a private citizen can be convicted in the Senate.
Show me where in the constitution it talks about a senate impeachment trial, private citizens, and the whole Supreme Court in the same section.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Worse in what way? That both sides use theatrics to gain more authoritative power and destroy their competition, and the left is just better at doing that?
Democrats are better at using authoritative power to destroy their competition? Really? There is a reason Trump got to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices and hundreds of federal judges in his tenure, and it wasn’t because they all just happened to be open. There is a reason democrats have to win the popular vote in congressional races nationwide by clear majorities just to match the number of seats republicans will get. It’s not democrats using authoritarian tactics to gain power.
If it was an actual insurrection, Biden would already have ordered the FBI to imprison citizen Trump. Can you guess some possible reasons why old Joe hasn't done this?
Not going to answer the question I see. That’s ok though, I guess I wouldn’t either knowing that there is no way I could appear serious while doing so.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
You do know it is the judicial branch of govt that determines the constitutionality of any law or act of congress.
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments” - article 1, section 3, clause 6
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Call your doctor immediately for insurrections lasting longer than four hours.
Actually it’s call the Vice President, because the President won’t give a crap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then you agree this Theatrical Display is about securing power and has nothing to do with punishing Trump or justice or "protecting democracy"
Question: is this just projection, or do you really think democrats are worse than republicans?
I’m also really curious as to what you would be saying about this insurrection if it were Joe Biden who lost and then spent the following two months telling the country the election was rigged, right before summoning antifa to the Capitol and telling them to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, for them to storm and takeover the Capitol draped in Biden 2020 flags... tell me you would consider any attempt to hold him accountable to be “political theater”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Great so if the President of the United States is impeached, then Article 1 Section 4 states that the Chief Justice must preside. Since he is not presiding the trial is inherently unconstitutional.
That’s not what it says.
“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”
The president is not being tried, the former president is.
Impeachment and the trial are two different things. The house impeached the sitting president. The senate is now holding the trial of the former president. Nothing about this violates the constitution.
And beyond that... what is your point? That John Robert’s gets to decide on his own whether the senate can try Donald Trump? And for what? Are you that desperate to avoid having to face the reality that he is obviously guilty as charged?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It says impeachment and conviction only apply to the President, Vice President, or other Officers.
And it was the president they impeached. The trial is entirely in regards to his actions *as president*.
Do you believe original intent should play any role in this, or do you really see this as a semantic game of gotcha?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The only way you prove that is through a God that says you should or shouldn’t do something.
That’s makes morality *subject to* whatever God says.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
You do know impeachment is a *political* process right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Right because that's why Biden got booed at the Superbowl for demanding America to be afraid for the .13% at-risk Americans that died while the 95 percenters without connections got the shit stick with neverending arbitrary lockdowns as Washington DC had a 2-year silence for those people.
Thank you for making my point - right wingers don’t care about the pandemic, so it’s beyond disingenuous every time we hear them talk about how the senate is wasting their time with this trial when they could be handling COVID instead
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Still wondering what the answer to this is
It’s not complicated... nothing about it says they can’t try him. You do know the president is not the only federal officer that can face impeachment and conviction right?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I don’t see what this has to do with my post. I never mentioned minimum wage, and I agree that ambition is important. It’s not about equality of outcome, it’s about equality of opportunity. And while we understand that the latter is still not realistic, right now we’re not even close, and that’s not an accident.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why do people think because you worked hard to give to your children when you die your kids should suffer and give up almost half of what their parents worked for.
I’ve never heard of anyone refer to receiving half of what their parents attained as “suffering”.
But I am always curious why it is that the side claiming to be all about hard work and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps remains so protective of trust fund babies being handed a free hand at life.
No one is advocating for the guy who left behind his $200k house pay half of its worth to government. The federal exemption used to be $5 million per individual. That wasn’t enough so republicans made it $10 million ($20 million for a married couple). So the kids of rich parents get their first $20 million entirely free of taxes, and only begin to pay taxes on the money they receive after that. So let me get this straight... I work for $50k and have to pay something like 15% of it to the government, but you get handed $20 million and pay nothing? How does that make sense?
But the most important reason to increase estate taxes is to provide opportunity to everyone. The wealth gap in this country is not an accident, nor is it a measure of how hard Americans work. Wealth begets wealth. That’s how unfettered capitalism works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank god America has so few actual problems the public can be happy and content that the government can spend 8 years impeaching Trump. No unintended consequences at all.
Let me guess... the pandemic? You know, the one Trump didn’t give a rats ass about for the past year but is now all of a sudden his supporters think should be the president’s number one priority?
And I love how much right wingers love to project. Just because republicans spent 4 years investigating, reinvestigating, and investigating again Benghazi, doesn’t mean democrats plan to do the same.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
*preside* (not president)
*At least* (not at threat)
Fixed
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Further: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."If you insist, as above in my #1, that "shall have the power" means compelled to use power, must the Chief Justice preside in a Senate trial, or there is no trial?Consistency is a necessary component of interpretation, or did you think the Founders were that sloppy in cafeteria-style interpretation?
The Chief Justice is only required to president over the trial of a sitting president. At threat that’s his interpretation. Just because you don’t agree with John Robert’s doesn’t mean Donald Trump can’t be tried. That’s absurd.
Second, I find this part especially ridiculous... The only reason we are having this trial now that Trump is out of office is because the senate chose to hold off to give Trump time to prepare his legal defense. So holding it while he was still in office would have been a a violation of his rights, yet holding it after he leaves office is a violation of his rights. Just. Wow.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Does the above phrase from Article I say that the Senate is compelled to use that power, even in a case for which that body has original jurisdiction? If you agree, why do you also agree that the Supreme Court, also in a case of original jurisdiction, was not compelled to hear a case before it? Voilà, the contradiction of the progressive so-called mind.
Having the power to try a case does not mean one must.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What Trump actions? He spoke. If people cannot control their own actions, that’s on them, yeah?
Why do you think “incitement of insurrection” is in the constitution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If this was the impeachment trial of the President of the United States, then per the Constitution Chief Justice John Roberts should be presiding. Since President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy is presiding, this trial is inherently unconstitutional. The trial is unconstitutional. And resigning would have no impact lol. If he gets elected, which he probably won’t, then the Senate convicts him again
Trump is not the sitting president, so Robert’s doesn’t have to preside. What is so difficult about that?
Allowing him to run and take office completely disregards the whole point of giving the senate the choice to disqualify him.
How is it cherry picking? It’s legit evidence. If I say I’m going to kill so and so vs I’m going to kill so and so, jk, saying jk is legitimate evidence. As for common sense, the same rhetoric has been used by every politician for decades and literally means to speak up and protest peacefully. As for who would walk away? Literally 99% of the people lol.
It’s cherry picking because it ignores everything else he said, and ignores the context in which he was saying it. If you’re just going to ignore that’s which is convenient for your argument then you aren’t making one. The Capitol rioters weren’t ignoring these facts.
More like Portland politicians not doing any when a police precinct got burned down and CHOP was created. Where the hell were the prosecutions then lol. Oh wait, when Democrats do it, it doesn’t matter.
Show me on rioter in Portland who was out there because some democrat told them to be. You’re completely disregarding the entire concept of incitement, which last I checked is the thing we’re actually debating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I would rather look at what the Democrats did not say during all the destructive riots all over the country last summer.
Show me one riot that occurred *because of* the words of any elected official.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
if you’re not convinced of objective morality then so be it but if you’re going to be convinced of subjective morality then just like objective morality it requires proof otherwise nihilism is true
First of all, nihilism isn’t a claim so saying “nihilism is true” is incoherent.
Second, I just explained to you how nihilism not only does not follow from belief in a subjective moral system but is incompatible with it. Do you not understand what I wrote on this?
Third, what do you mean by suggesting that one must prove subjective morality if they cannot prove objective morality? We have morality. That does not need to be proven, at least not in the context of this debate. We’re debating whether morality is objective or subjective.
Wouldn’t you say that once someone dies and goes to either heaven or hell that would empirically demonstrate that they were an objectively moral or immoral person? I would say so if that were to happen.
When we talk about demonstrating something it goes without saying that we are talking about doing so while we’re alive. But let’s set that aside...
No, an after life does not demonstrate objective morality. In fact the existence of God does not demonstrate this either. God does not solve any of the problems that objective moralists throw at subjective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
Curious to see where other members stand on various arguments being made in this trial. Here are some of mine:
“This impeachment is unconstitutional”
It seems clear to me that republicans are going to hang their hat on this because they have no defense of the president’s actions. Of course this argument itself doesn’t hold any water. The impeachment took place while Trump was in office, so the argument here is that you cannot *convict* a former president for their final actions in office, which is absurd. And as many have pointed out, this would mean that a president can simply resign just before the final vote and then be free run again.
“The president didn’t incite an insurrection”
Most who make this argument are pointing to the president’s use of the phrase “peacefully make your voices heard” in his infamous Capitol speech. This is classic cherry picking and ignores common sense. The president’s message to his supporters was that their voices have been stolen and that they need to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Who in their right mind would walk away from that with making their voices heard peacefully to be the take away? This is clearly said for plausible deniability.
“But look at what the democrats said”
Point me to the insurrection that resulted from any of the falsely equivocated words of anyone else and we can talk about whether they should be impeached as well.
Any others? Agree? Disagree? Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because I don’t view it as a concept within our mind, I view it as objectively proven, and if I’m wrong about this then that still doesn’t make subjective morality correct, it would make nihilism true by default.
Nihilism entails the rejection of all principals and values. There is nothing about accepting the subjective nature of morality that requires this, and in fact believing in a self described subjective moral system already makes one by definition, not a nihilist.
The question isn’t whether subjective morality is correct but whether morality is itself subjective. You say morality is objectively proven, how is that even possible? What does that even mean? For something to be objectively proven to be true it must be empirically demonstrable. Can you demonstrate in any empirical sense the rightfulness or wrongfulness of any moral judgement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Morality doesn’t exist in any normal usage of the word. We’re talking about a set of principals that govern judgements regarding right vs. wrong. You could say it exists as concepts within our minds, but that’s it.
How is this an issue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
For those of you that believe morality is subjective, a big reason I have a hard time grasping the concept is choice, assuming that it’s true, when comparing it to other unequivocally subjective things there’s a difference and that’s choice, take for example...
I find this post confusing, but I gather that you believe morality is objective and I’m betting you believe God is the source of that morality. So, isn’t using the word of God as your moral standard just as much of a choice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Honestly sounds overrated to me lol.
The value you place on something is irrelevant to the violation of having it taken from you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then shouldn't it be banned for EVERYBODY?Shouldn't it be banned from the dictionary itself?
Banned in what sense? The OP discussed the usage of the word within school related activities. I made no argument that it is ok for some people to say it and not others.
I don’t think it should be banned from dictionaries, that is in part how we educate people about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
History alone is not and never was the sole problem with the N word. It’s the combination of where the word came from plus how it is used today.
You talked about words evolving. Hep hep has evolved entirely. Most people have no idea where it came from, all they know about it is that it is used to express joy. Show me one person who doesn’t know where the N word came from. Show me one person who doesn’t understand that it is deeply offensive to black people.
The only evolution of the N word is that it used to be uttered by slave owners talking to their property, now it’s uttered by mostly white people to insult black people by reminding that they used to be regarded as property. Your examples are not remotely similar.
And to be clear, we’re talking about “ni**er” not “ni**a”. That’s what the title of this thread said this was about.
You talked about words evolving. Hep hep has evolved entirely. Most people have no idea where it came from, all they know about it is that it is used to express joy. Show me one person who doesn’t know where the N word came from. Show me one person who doesn’t understand that it is deeply offensive to black people.
The only evolution of the N word is that it used to be uttered by slave owners talking to their property, now it’s uttered by mostly white people to insult black people by reminding that they used to be regarded as property. Your examples are not remotely similar.
And to be clear, we’re talking about “ni**er” not “ni**a”. That’s what the title of this thread said this was about.
Kanye West literally has a song named nigger in parris. Is he not black? Why can he say it and others cannot?
That has nothing to do with this conversation. Your OP made clear that this was about the usage of the N word in private spaces, such as your school. That’s what I’m responding to.
Incorrect. In disputing my point, you clearly believe that you should ban the n-word because it is rude. Using the same reasoning, I can then ban all rude wordsp1. The n word is rudep2. Rude words should be bannedc1 The n word should be banned because it is rude
This is a complete strawman. I never said the word should be banned merely because it is rude. Nearly all decisions as to what is acceptable are considered on the basis of severity. You’re ignoring that entirely. A bank robber and a guy who stole a candy bar are both thiefs. Do you believe they should get the same sentence? I’m betting you don’t. Now apply the same concept here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Do you believe That this universal ignition is capable of existing and not existing at the same time? Do you believe it make make itself what it is and what it is not at the same time in the same sense?
If yes, then your belief is definitionally irrational, undercutting any attempt to prove its existence with logic.
If no, then this cognition is bound by these universals, which would require some other force to impose these universal limits on this cognition. If that is the case then this cognition cannot be claimed to account for them or be the source of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
The N-word isn’t the only “rude” term there is in the English vocabulary. What is the solution, are we going to ban all hateful speech? What will that leave us with?
Rude behavior is generally considered unacceptable on any platform or organized space. I assume that’s not the issue you are looking to have addressed.
Comparing the N-word to other rude words is a false equivalence because it is rooted in actual trauma suffered by African Americans at the hands of white American society for centuries. Because of its history it is a dehumanizing word on a level no word in the English language can compare to.
Before you say “but that’s the past, move on”, let me ask you... have you ever been on ancestry.com? Have you ever heard the stories of your great great great great grandfather? Must be nice to have a family history and culture to look back on. That was stolen from black Americans. It turns out that no one ever thought to track the family history of their property.
Ever sit around with your white friends talking about time travel, and what it would be like to go back in time and witness the country’s founding? Not of you’re black, you would have been hauled off and sold.
Ever listen to people talk about how wonderful our constitution is? Now imagine what it is like listening to that conversation knowing that the same document they are talking about says that you are three fifths of a person.
To be black in America is to live with all of this on your shoulders. This is what the N word is rooted in, and what is being thrown at black people every time it is used.
The rest is a just slippery slope fallacy. Banning one word does not make it reasonable to open the flood gates to banning all words any more than allowing gays to marry will result in people marrying their sock drawers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I challenge anyone to give me a moral system capable of support the abortion industry and human rights at the same time.Moral system: A moral standard, a moral authority and a way to measure moral value (who is valuable means who should be treated morally good)Human rights: The idea that all humans are equally valuable regardless of their position, traits and views.Human: A being with its own distinct DNA which is a part of the species homo sapiens
You’re looking for a perfect moral system to deal with a moral dilemma. That’s not logically possible.
A system that allows abortion allows for the termination of human life. A system that does not allow abortion removes a woman’s right to her own body.
You can believe you are in a greater moral position based on whichever of these evils you choose to be against, but you cannot credibly label those who disagree with you as being for an immoral system for you are no different.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
And therein lies the problem with moral subjectivism.Let's say my standard says there is no possible world where torturing infants for fun is morally acceptable.Let's say another person's standard is that it is totally acceptable to torture infants for fun.Which of those two standards is right?
There is no such thing as a “right standard”. The standard is the very thing we use to measure a claim against in order to tell if it is right or wrong.
If I claim “the earth is round”, the standard is reality. Reality being the standard is what defines the word objective.
“Torturing babies for fun” has no such basis in reality to compare it to for accuracy, so it cannot be objectively right or wrong. It can only be right or wrong in accordance with our subjectively chosen standard.
I subjectively choose the principals of less harm and fairness for my standard. You subjectively choose the word of god as yours. We’re no different in this regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
P3. If they are not dependent on human cognition, they are dependent on another cognition. Namely a universal cognition.
To say that they are dependent on a universal cognition is to say that this cognition isn’t bound by the laws of logic. If it is not bound by logic then your belief about it cannot be based in logic, rendering your attempt at a logical argument for it to be self defeating at the outset.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.P4. Therefore if atheism is true, there is no justification for believing anything to be true.
This argument is just repackaged presuppositionalism.
No worldview solves P3 and P4 contorts the definition of belief.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He didn’t suggest anything like that. Taxing a billion dollar estate at 40% will not leave its heirs in poverty.
Created: