Total posts: 5,890
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Think a little harder. What was the implication of the fact.
Well it certainly wasn't implying anything about law and order.
He was explaining to you how the broadcast system works since you apparently didn't understand it, as demonstrated by your downplaying of Trump's veiled threat to take away ABC's license by pretending news channels don't need a license.
Translation: but what you haven't taken into account is that you're completely wrong about everything.
I was responding to a vague claim with a vague counterclaim. If you'd like to discuss in greater detail you know I'm here for it.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
That's where you're wrong! For sure it was near 12 years old!
So you talked to this banker in 2012?
I may not have studies and "official" people saying this, but if some guy who makes his living from telling the market, AND the market did surge (except for COVID) then that's good enough for me.
Yeah, that's the problem.
Professor Alan Lictman has been using his key system to correctly predict elections for decades. It predicted Trump is 2016 and Biden in 2020. He's predicting Harris in 2024. So we have to believe him... Right?
why are there so many different views on how the economy is doing? It seems to depend on the political leaning.
It certainly does. Studies consistently show people are more satisfied with the economy when their preferred political party is in the White House. But among economic experts it's more nuanced. A major part of the problem is that everyone has a different idea of what a great economy looks like. I can show you that unemployment and GDP is doing much better under Biden, and then you'll show me that affordability was much better under Trump. Setting aside who's responsible for what, we both have the ammo we need to retreat back to our political corners. So if we are trying to have a serious conversation over who has the better economy (which I'm really not) then that conversation would have to begin by determining what a good economy is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Who will give you that ?
Anyone that's not Trump will move us significantly in that direction.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Maybe you are right. I shouldn't take into account investment bankers from JP Morgan, who study the stock market and what policies would effect it
There is a reason anecdotes are not considered evidence, yet that's all you've presented here and apparently the primary factor from which your belief on this is based. That is a basic failure of critical thinking.
Just as in any industry, you will always have a difference in opinions regardless of their expertise. This is why we rely on data, not anecdotes. If we went by your logic then every banker who thought the stock market would boom for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump would also be right, so you would be in the position of having to accept two mutually exclusive explanations simultaneously. That's not how logic works.
What's also crazy about this is that you're going off of what a banker told you in what could have only been as late as 2016. It's 2024 now, we don't have to speculate on what night happen and what night cause it, we have data and facts now which I've eluded to but you dismissed it on the basis of your 8 year old anecdote. That is very telling.
I should ask some random keyboard warrior, who can't define what a woman is
Well that didn't take long.
I take it since you ignored everything else I said which was far more meaningful and relevant to the conversation along with your condescension and turn towards myself personally even though you have no idea what my position is here... That you concede in that you have no legitimate reason to believe Trump will be better for the economy in 2025 than Harris.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
There are losers who are actually going to vote for this incontinent senile old man.
Yeah yeah yeah. But let's all break down Kamala's latest answer on tax rate distributions and ask ourselves if we really want a president who can't articulate the policies we'd like to see implemented...
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Even Moscow Mitch is voting for Kamala Harris, and if he were alive, so would Ronald Reagan.
Another TDS liberal activist speaks out against MAGA. *Yawn*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Oh no, not the amazingly clever "We're rubber, you're glue" again, man, you guys are good at this.
Even their own projection is projected. Amazing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Lliberals- bothered that Biden has dementia so randomly start stating it about Trump.
We've been talking about his cognitive impairments since 2015.
Liberals- accuse Trump of planning to use lawfare while simultaneously using lawfare
We've been talking about Trump's attempts to weaponize government since 2016, and accelerated after he fired Jim Comey in 2017.
You guys are retarded. Come up with your own shit.
Exactly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I would like a political environment where the issue of the day we are arguing about is our differences in tax rates, the debt and deficit, healthcare, etc. Not one where we're constantly dealing with conspiracy theories and where the president thinks the enemy he must defeat is half the country he governs.
Trump will not give me that.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
Pick one reason if you'd like that you are prepared to stand by and I'll be glad to explain why.I did. I listed multiple reasons why I support Trump.
Picking one doesn't mean listing multiple examples. It means pick *one*.
Anyone can ramble off a list of nonsense. I could give you 100 reasons to vote for Kamala and you will reject them all, that's a pointless waste of time. If we're going to have any kind of productivity in our dialog it needs to be pointed, not a 10k word response full of one liners.
I ask you to pick one because if I pick from your list you can just accuse me of cherry picking your weakest and/or least relevant point. So I'll ask it this way, out of everything you mentioned what is your strongest point for Trump? If you are unable to stick to one that speaks volumes as to the strength of everything else you wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Objectively, AI correctly saw the differences in rhetoric between the 2 convention speeches, and AI is most definitely not in a partisan cult.
Because his convention speech was rewritten days prior to the convention after the first assassination attempt. We know this because he said so, out loud, and admitted his original draft would have been far worse. Only a pure political hack would ignore this fact while cherry picking the one moment in this entire campaign where Trump was trying to be measured.
you better give Bush, Romney, and Dick Cheney that memo since they all support Harris.
Yeah, cause they all see plainly what a danger he is to the foundation of the American experiment.
We can hope Trump turns the page and becomes a much stronger leader than the one that got almost got murdered and jailed.
He's made very clear who his role models for strength are; Vladimir Putin, Victor Orban, and Kim Jong Un. Would you like me to bring the receipts, or are you now going to pretend those guys are not that bad?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They don't license opinions, they license frequencies, we are talking about regulating the airwaves, not ideas.Uh huh. Law and order, bla bla bla, nobody is above the law; not even ABC rofl!
Note Howe he just gave you a factual response and you reply with an invented caricature. This is what you guys do.
This is a preview BTW of the zero fucks I'm going to give if (and it is only a hope) the left tribe gets a taste of its own medicine.
It's not it's own medicine, it's the medicine right wing hacks invented through their delusions and false equivalences, all born out of projection.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
That is not cooperation when a bunch of armed thugs in sunglasses request you do something.
It is when those requests are granted voluntarily, which they were.
What's so funny about this Twitter files argument is that the "thugs" you are talking about was Donald Trump's own DOJ, so your claim that this is bring perpetrated by democrats is just layers of ridiculous.
Guys from the Biden administration literally stepped down to pursue him.
You mean one person left the DOJ to take a job at the persecutors office in NY. Wow, never seen that happen before...
It's amazing how you pretend everyone else is just believing what they're told as you buy hook line and sinker into unfounded conspiracy theories based on absolutely nothing.
You have to be a complete retard to think he would face this type of legal scrutiny had he not run for president.
Every one of his indictments involved actions as president or as a candidate, so of course he wouldn't have faced any of this scrutiny had he not run for president.
Also Hunter is like baby charges meant to pacify people claiming lawfare
Correct, it was. He was prosecuted for lying about his addiction on a gun application, something there is no record of anyone ever being prosecuted for alone. It is beyond obvious that the only reason he was charged is because his last name is Biden, all to pacify conspiracy theorists who have no interest or understanding of how to evaluate evidence and apply critical thinking. All they do is look at Trump getting indicted and go "Trump indicted mean DOJ bad. Now Hunter must be indicted otherwise this is lawfare!". Of course it never mattered cause you guys will scream lawfare no matter what happens.
It's not magical. If you are never around people with covid you can't get covid.
Yeah, glad you finally understand what the lockdowns were for.
But on a grand scale this idea is patently absurd. There are over 300 million people in this country and we do business all over the world. There is no way you can stop every person, including US citizens, from entering the country without a supervised 14 day isolation period. That would have taken months to set up and even then there is no chance it would have been 100% successful, and any error at all would have collapsed the entire project. This whole idea is cartoonishly ridiculous, and that's putting it lightly.
You don't shut down the bill of rights at any time for any reason ever.
They weren't. It was a global pandemic, that calls for extreme measures. Every right is subject to reasonable restrictions which is why you can't tell fire in a crowded theater. All you're doing is ignoring the "reasonable" part of the equation, not impressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well maybe if Trump said "Kamala" 100 times a day
He talks about her constantly, certainly more than he talks about policy
called her literally Hitler
He calls her a communist marxist fascist lunatic every day
said his business experience is defined by a relationship with a friend who once ran a business
No, he just brags about being the greatest business man ever despite having to declare bankruptcy 6 times. The producer of the apprentice admitted that it was all fake and that they had to fabricate his persona because he isn't anywhere near the success he pretends to be
and says he is turning the page while also running on the record of his 4 years in charge
He's literally running as the outsider after having been president for 4 years and the unquestionable leader of the republican party for the past 8
then this election might be completely different.
Apparently not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
What does everyone think is gonna happen?
Same thing that always happens. She'll be asked a bunch of normal questions, some of her answers will great, some will be ok, and some will fall short because they won't address the issue and/or make a whole lot of sense. Then MAGA will come along and pretend their guy isn't a complete babbling idiot who never answers a tough question and repeatedly goes on demented rants that would instantly end any other politicians career, and they will attack her for days for failing to live up to the standards that they don't even pretend to hold their guy to.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Strawman fallacy. Nobody claimed they were shutting down the media
He has repeatedly stated that media organizations that reported on him unfavorably should lose their license.
Here he is threatening to take away NBC's license cause he didn't like their reporting
Here he is threatening to take away ABC's license after he didn't like the way they tested him at the debate:
https://reason.com/2024/09/11/trump-threatens-abcs-broadcast-license-after-rocky-debate-performance/
And here you are pretending that this isn't fascist because in the fantasy land you live in it doesn't matter what Trump says cause you get to pretend that he is whatever you say he is while ignoring everything he demonstrates himself to be
^^^
he criticized the media in his first term and it never happened. Nice try.
So 2017 Trump administration is the same as 2025 Trump administration? That's what you're going with?
Now compare that with the fact the current administration literally censored social media with threats
They didn't censor social media. You're living in delusion. Twitter willingly worked with the FBI to combat misinformation. Last I checked that was allowed in the free market you guys pretend to believe in.
Yes the people using it this administration are less likely to than the guy who has been in office and didn't do it
You are completely delusional. The justice department is going after lawbreakers, which includes Bob Menendez and oh yeah, Hunter Biden. You can't be serious.
Trump is facing indictments because he broke the law in painfully obvious ways. Only the most partisan MAGA cultists could look at the trove of evidence against him and think otherwise.
You can discourage it without turning into fascists who disregard the bill of rights. Trump's solution at the beginning to seal off the borders to keep covid out would have worked but he was criticized for that and democrat mayor's were literally holding hug a Chinese person days
This is beyond stupid. It was a global pandemic, you cannot keep it out by "shutting down the borders". Moreover, this is another one of those brazen contradictions in MAGA world; either COVID was a deadly virus to be taken seriously or it wasn't. If it was, then Trump's handling of it was objectively atrocious. If it wasn't, then there was no need to shut down the borders or take any other serious measures to stop it. If you really want to talk about COVID then pick one.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
How long does it take for a administration's decisions to actually take effect? 4 years? So does the roaring economy go to Obama or Trump?
It depends on the circumstances. What was the economic outlook when Trump took office? Did that outlook change? Did it change because of Trump's policies? You need to look at the full picture.
The short answer is that nothing changed. The economy continued to grow at the same trajectory it did when Trump came into office. His signature legislative accomplishment was a tax cut that was not paid for and which 83% of the benefits went to the top 1%. There is nothing to tie Trump to in order to credit him with creating the economy of the late 2010's.
Does the terrible inflation go to Trump or Biden? I think the answer varies and depending on the cause of the inflation.
Yeah, it does. And it is in my view obvious that the cause was the disruption to the supply chain resulting from COVID, which is why every peer nation on earth experienced the same thing we did.
And even if you are willing to overlook the obvious and claim inflation (which coincidentally every other peer nation on earth also experienced) was entirely or even primarily due to Biden's policies, you'd still have to explain why only Biden's spending caused it and not Trump's. And after that, you'd have to take into account that the policies you are pointing to in order to make this argument are a direct response to the conditions created by COVID. You don't have to like that Biden signed off on stimulus payments to Americans in 2021 but you can't pretend that was some generic Biden policy passed in the abstract and therefore an indicator of what to expect for 2025. It was all tied too COVID.
Again, no economic expert, but if bankers are hedging on the fact that Trump will boost the market, then it's his policies, not what he inherited, that will create the great market.
You talked to a banker who said the stock market will boom because of Trump, then the stock market boomed and that is proof that it boomed because of Trump? That's ridiculous.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That is why you should have cared when laws were used in entirely novel ways against the lotus of political dissent, you should have cared when election laws were violated and evidence was ignored and suppressed, but you either agree with the fascists or you did not understand what was happening.
You're a conspiracy theorist lecturing me in what's "happening", ok bro. That right there illustrates why we can't see eye to eye on anything. Everything you just cited as examples are pure BS.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Oh, Damn, the "Trump's rubber, Kamala is glue" campaign strategy, haven't seen that since grade school.
Where have you been? It's been the central strategy of the republican playbook since Trump rode down the golden escalator.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Yep Trump is a fascist I am definitely going to vote for the party who wants to censor free speech by
Buy shutting down news stations that don't report on the dear leader favorably, because the dear leader said so?
I also will vote for the non fascist party as they are willing to use law fare against any and all political opponents...
As Trump has repeatedly vowed he is going to do?
I also will support the party who protected us from the fascist covid19 virus by putting restrictions on where we could go...
You do know what a pandemic is right? Was your solution to encourage social interaction?
Fascism is bad
You clearly don't know what the word means.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
Shall I keep going?
No, because nothing you brought up is accurate or legitimate. Pick one reason if you'd like that you are prepared to stand by and I'll be glad to explain why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So what if what gets you into heaven remains constant? Does that make morality objective?
No, it makes the qualifications for getting into heaven objective. Whether that is moral depends on the standard for morality, and I for one do not consider one doing whatever is in their eternal personal interests to be a marker of morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I do find it interesting that the left is always trying to adopt rigt wing memes because they get so butt hurt.
They're not adopting right wing memes, it's just funny how those memes always fit right wingers better than the left wing counterparts they were aimed at. Example: using a term aimed to describe how overly sensitive the political opposition is to anything that offends them, meanwhile still talking about one comment made by one politician about you guys nearly a decade later.
Projection is a real thing.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oh it depends on how well you understand philosophy, sociology, and history.
Oh really, tell me all about the historical significance of economic fascism in 1930's Germany.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, you just can't stand a gaslight proof argument.
What I can't stand is when someone ducks and dodges the conversation by pivoting to something irrelevant, and bonus points for not even writing your own pivot.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I agree that COVID stunted the economy in both administrations, but I personally think that if COVID not happened, the economy would have been better with Trump's administration than Biden's. Reason being that the inflation was not happening in the Trump years but went out of control in the Biden years.
But that's exactly my point. Inflation was a direct result of COVID, that's why it hit every peer nation on earth not just the US. So if you're going to say that Trump isn't responsible for the damage to the economy in 2020 because that was caused by COVID, then the same applies to Biden/Harris.
But you don't seem to be doing that. Instead you seem to be giving Trump credit for everything that was great during his first 3 years (ignoring that he didn't build the economy he inherited that had already been growing for 7 straight years) while judging Biden/Harris based the mess Trump handed them.
Side question: I'm no economic expert, but does the stock market reflect inflation?
Sure it has some effect. The stock market is just one metric and not the most telling because it really only measures confidence. I don't use the stock market to judge president's but I bring it up because Trump and those who support him typically do so it's interesting to see what people have to say about it when I bring it up.
One thing you can't deny is that if Trump were president today he would be bragging to no end about how good the stock market is, would be taking full credit for it and Trump supporters would be talking about this for years reminiscing about how great Trump's stock market was back in 2024.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
He seems to be more informed than you.
I can use Chatgpt too, I just prefer to have real conversations between human beings.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Economic fascism refers to...
I don't care about what it refers to because that's not what we're talking about.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Yes, Trump is responsible for the response of COVID, but introducing COVID to the USA was not in his policy book.
No one's accusing Trump of bringing the virus over here, we're talking about the economy. You said Trump's term was exceptional except for COVID and then remarked about Harris's 4 years so I took that as an indictment of the economic record.
My point was a response to the argument I hear from Trump supporters all the time; that Trump's 3 years were great and Biden's 4 years were not, which is disingenuous. Either we count all 4 years for both or we recognize that it's far more nuanced than that. I prefer the latter but am for the sake of argument fine with either, just pick one.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really hate to break it to you, but we already live in a fascist economy where the state largely controls what private industry can produce through countless crony regulations and subsidies. You worry about a descent to a place where we are already at.
Google fascism and let me know when you want to have a real conversation instead of this silly game of just throwing shit at the walls to see what you can get away with.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Why except COVID? Is a president responsible for what happens during their watch or notOf course. COVID being introduced was not his policy, but the economy crashed due to the response to it.
You're contradicting yourself, you can't say the president is responsible and then argue why he's not responsible.
Let's try again. Is the president responsible for what happens on his watch? Yes or No? (And by no it means "not necessarily")
If Yes, then Trump is responsible for the catastrophic economic circumstances of 2020.
If No, then Biden is not (necessarily) responsible for what happened as a result of COVID, even if it occurred in 2021 & 2022. So under this scenario and only this scenario you get to give Trump a pass on 2020, but that also means you don't get to just defacto blame Biden, you'd actually have to show that his policies are the catalyst.
So which is it?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So if you didn't want another Hitler, you shouldn't have let the Democrat party get away with destroying the democracy of a primary.
Democracy of a primary? WTF? Do you even know what a primary is?
Setting aside the utter stupidity of comparing a party going through it's primary process to replace it's nominee after that nominee voluntarily stepped down with the destruction of democracy... If I don't want another Hitler then guess what? I'm not going to vote for someone who echos his rhetoric and authorization impulses. What about you?
You failed to note Germany was slipping into 3rd world living conditions when Hitler took power.
Because it's irrelevant.
Something apparently Democrats don't give a fuck about since they think killing babies and penis chopping is more important than food.
The only reason we keep talking about trans penises is because the political right is insanely obsessed with them. Democrats aren't focusing on this, we're just constantly having to respond to the absurdity of a party that focuses on this because they have nothing else to offer.
Created:
-->
@Earth
Democrats have spent the last 8 years being stupid as fuck.
What about Trump and MAGA republicans?
Trump won't install a fascist dictatorship
"Install" is a bit hyperbolic. Do you believe Trump is a fascist? How do you think fascism takes hold if not via the elevation to power of fascistic leaders?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But anything real is reality so why would anyone say “subject to” anything that isn’t real (in any normal context)?
The phrase subject to is often used in conjunction with an uncertain determining factor. I.e. "the baseball game will be played on Saturday subject to the weather", or "this job offer is subject to a satisfactory background check". In other words we won't know what the outcome will be till we know the final status of determining factor. None of this means we're pointing to anything unreal, it's just not determined because the determining factor is not set.
Morality is the same exact thing. In this case it's determined by the moral values (aka standards) of the person asserting it. That is and will always be changeable. Objective assessments don't work this way. Reality is what it is regardless of what we think. The shape of the earth isn't subject to our beliefs or any other determining factor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
But the mind effects reality. See the double slit experiment
I don't see what that has to do with this conversation.
Created:
-->
@Earth
I'm either voting a meme like Jill Stein or grudge voting Trump.
What is your grudge?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The ole "deplorable" election strategy. Keep it up.
Why are right wingers such snowflakes?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely. If he's a failure at destroying things, then there's nothing to fear. It's all just fantasyland to think otherwise.
Then you're either grossly ignorant, deeply unintelligent, unserious, or some combination of the three because that is demonstrably ridiculous. Hitler also failed to destroy Germany's democracy the first time around, and after serving only five years in prison for his first coup attempt regained power so he could try again and we all know what happened from there.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone will be better at something the second time around, and it is undisputable that Trump will have an entirely different team far more willing to bend to his authoritarian impulses. To claim that the danger of him succeeding this time will be the same as before is just stupid.
And regardless of what you think the odds are that he would succeed, that's really besides the point. To acknowledge that he did in fact try it the first time is to acknowledge that he will not try to protect our democracy and yet you are willing to put him back in power? That's absurd. You do not need to believe he will succeed in order to recognize that him as a danger. If you owned a jewelry store and your security guard tried to steal from the diamond case you'd fire him instantly, you wouldn't say "he failed so he's harmless, let's give him another try". That's basic common sense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Last time I checked, Trump is going to be elected with the same Democracy he left in 2020.
Yeah, because he failed to destroy it. Do you seriously find this talking point convincing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then why claim that subject to means subjective?
Because it does in any normal context. What makes something objective is that it matches to reality, so saying "subject to reality" is the one instance where it works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Do you believe in the prime meridian? Most people would consider the prime meridian objectively true
I believe the thing we call the prime meridian is real place here in reality.
What's your point?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah fam. It's been weeks and you still haven't been honest enough to state the actual question. People are done with fantasy land narratives. Fake shame isn't gonna win this time.
Here is Trump saying exactly what I said while you sit there pathetically denying objective reality:
(Starts at 3:17, every other version I pulled up has parts cut off)
And if you wanna be totally honest, I can pull up a ton of clips where Pelosi and Schiff for brains encouraged violence on the left and forgave them because the white man cops be so evil.
Go ahead, I dare you to find one single clip of either of them encouraging violence anywhere near the scale of what Trump is doing everyday now. Let's compare our examples. Go.
You wanna make the world believe Trump is gonna burn the world down when leaders on the left actually did it with receipts? GTFO with the fantasyland
Last time I checked we still have a democracy and the stock market is at record highs. But go on and show me how the world is burning because of Kamala.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
His 4 years in office (except COVID) was exceptional
Why except COVID? Is a president responsible for what happens during their watch or not?
if she is so good, why hasn't the last 4 years already been done like she want the next 4 years to be?
Because they had to spend the first two years digging the economy out of the ditch that was dug for it during Trump's term.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Great, so when he said we should use the military against "radical left lunatics" we should believe him, right?I hope so. People are tired of the unchecked burning down of government buildings by political activists.
- Minneapolis, MN (2020) - Third Precinct police station burned during George Floyd protests.
- Portland, OR (2020) - Hatfield Federal Courthouse and other federal buildings vandalized and damaged...
The lying and the sane washing continues.
Donald Trump didn't say any of that, and in a follow up he was asked by a friendly interviewer what he meant by those comments, the interviewer very clearly trying to nudge him away from the clear implications of what he said. But Trump is just too stupid to take the hint and clarified that when he talked about the enemy from within he was thinking about people like Adam Shiff and Nancy Pelosi.
So as usual, instead of defending what Trump actually said and what he actually meant you fabricate a fantasy explanation of what you wish he was talking about in order to justify supporting a very clear and proud fascist. It's pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
you ignore the fact that objectivity isn't determined by what people believe.Sure it is.
Then you don't know what objective means.
For example we all believe that we shouldn't kill without a good reason but the good reason part is what is up for debate, so we all have the same base morality, but it is expressed differently.
Again, we don't all posses this base morality. You acknowledge that while simultaneously arguing that our perfect uniformity proves objective morality. That's a logical contradiction.
If morality is based on the assurance of human survival then of course it objectively follows that killing people is wrong. That's not proof that morality is objective, it's a tautology. That's no different than me saying there is no bachelor anywhere on earth right now that is married. Of course not, because that's how the word is defined.
The fallacy of pronouncing a tautology is that it sounds like you're saying something useful and meaningful when it is neither.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So when Trump says something we should take him at his word, is that right?Yes.
Great, so when he said we should use the military against "radical left lunatics" we should believe him, right?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I never can understand this. Trump has said a hundred times he doesn't want a Federal ban.
So when Trump says something we should take him at his word, is that right?
Created:
-->
@JoeBob
I am voting for Kamala Haris because I believe in sanity and a world where truth matters. I believe in the rule of law and the constitution, and I believe in democracy. Overall I do like her policies even though I take issue with a lot of them, but that is secondary to everything else I just mentioned.
Trump is the antithesis of every I just mentioned. Back in 2016 after the election my mother and sister asked me what I thought about Trump. I told them my number one issue with him is that he's a conspiracy theorist. I told them he would be a cancer on the American brain, and I hate to say that 8 years later I was exactly right.
We now live in a country where nearly half the population thinks the election was stolen. We have a prominent member of Congress who thinks we can control the whether. A few weeks ago FEMA for the first time in it's history had to put up a web page debunking internet conspiracy theories because they were interfering with their disaster relief efforts. And we are now in a political environment where a presidential candidate being charged and convicted makes him more likely to win the election, not less, because half the country thinks it was all a conspiracy against him.
None of this would be possible if not for Trump and it will not get any better till he is out of our politics for good. But that was my 2016 take. 2024 is way, way worse. I could go on about it for another few pages so I'll just say Schedule F. Unlike 4 years of bad policies, a national embarrassment, and the collective lowering of our national IQ, the damage Trump can and likely will do this time around may not be reversible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So is objectivity subjective since it's “subject to” facts?
Objectivity isn't subject to facts, facts are subject to reality, which is what makes them objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The exact same sense of morality is the argument.
It's not an argument.
First of all we don't all have the exact same sense of morality, that's why there are wars and why politics is so divisive.
Second, you claim we all share the same moral values after purposefully excluding those who don't share those moral values. That's useless.
Third, you ignore the fact that objectivity isn't determined by what people believe.
Fourth, you ignore that there is a much simpler explanation for what we do observe with regards to the uniformity of morality: Evolution. On its base level, what unifies us on issues of morality is the desire to survive. It is that desire which is the reason we're here having this conversation in the first place. 99.9% of every species that once existed on earth is now extinct. That without question includes every species that came about without that base desire.
Created: