Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What steps do you think the next president could do to convince a return to peace agreements?
In Russia? Nothing. The only thing Putin will accept is surrender.
Would Madman be a part of that strategy?
No. Like I already pointed out, you can't have it both ways. Either Trump is not the madman he pretends to be, in which case Putin knows this. Or he is the Madman you guys talk about, which makes him by definition a threat to our safety and stability.
So all Soleimani had to do was say nice things and then Trump would not have assassinated him?
Yes, just like every other dictator Trump fawns over. Trump doesn't care about any of this, he onlydid it for the photo op (yes, that's a real story. He literally called the generals back in afterwards to pretend they were reacting in real time for the camera).
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That's not the case here.Yeah? Well neither is you being unable to live without access to my body, that’s also not the case here but you originally argued that it is which is a lie.
I didn't argue/lie about me being unable to live without access to your body. I said "if I were unable to...".
If =/= Is
If is the beginning of a hypothetical, which means it's not real life, and I've already explained why it doesn't need to be. You just don't get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What about the 27 letters exchanged between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and then-US President Donald Trump between April 2018 and August 2019?
Kim Jong Un was doing the same thing to Trump that Harris did on the debate stage - using his ego and narcissism to manipulate him. Every world leader knows how easy this is, and it was demonstrated once again for the entire world a few weeks ago.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I was also making a truth claim, you changed the subject by bringing up an unrealistic hypothetical
Unrealistic hypothetical? So you still don't understand what hypotheticals are and why they are useful. Got it.
“The premises of their morality is what you're taking issue with, not their rationality. They're two different things.”Again you’re assuming that morality is a rational concept
Oh my god dude, this is absolutely insane.
I just wrote two entire posts walking you through what rationality is and how it applies to morality. That by definition is not an assumption. It's an argument, and one you continue to pretend doesn't exist even though it's right there in front of your face. All you have to do is read it. Please give that try.
forget about morality for a minute (I can do hypotheticals too) if a concept is already established as irrational what need is there to form a premise and conclusion around it?
Established means that all parties within the conversation agree. That's not the case here. If it were there would be no reason to continue with a hypothetical, but we don't, so...
The purpose is to demonstrate the concept's irrationality by showing how accepting that concept leads to absurdities. The takeaway from the exercise is that the argument being examined (via the logic test, aka hypothetical) is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you ok? It's a question about existential threats...
The title of the thread is called Madman Theory, the op explains what that is and goes step by step explaining why it's nonsense. If you want to talk about something else, just say that (which is exactly what I gave you the opportunity to express in response). But don't sit here pretending your question was relevant to the op, it wasn't.
To answer your irrelevant question, I think we are closer to WW3 than we were in 2016. What is your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The questions I raised pertain to madman theory as an explanation for why Trump is better at keeping us safe. What you seem to be alluding to is an entirely different argument which is the typical correlation/causation fallacy right wingers love to engage in (but only when convenient).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you really believe we were closer to nuclear war in 2016 than we are now?
So you have a question that is relevant to the points raised in the op?
Created:
Posted in:
Despite the plethora of evidence showing us how much of a bumbling idiot Trump is, how easily manipulable he is, and how incapable he really is at dealmaking, we are constantly told by the political right that Trump is better for dealing with these violent authoritarian regimes. They say Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump were in office, Hezbollah wouldn't have attacked Israel if Trump were in office.
The justification for this claim is often this idea of madman theory, or some refer to it as chaos theory. The idea is that Trump projects to these countries that he is so unhinged that they're all afraid of him.
The problem with this idea is that it doesn't survive the slightest bit of rational scrutiny.
I have a question for those who buy into this idea; Do you believe that you have more information on Trump than foreign countries? Do you think they don't have access to his speeches, rallies, interviews, or whatever you have seen of Trump that you are using to judge him?
If yes... Well there's the problem.
If no, then question number 2; Do you believe you are smarter than other countries? Do you really think your personal ability to assess the "real" Donald Trump is better than the team of behavioral experts these countries would have assessing him?
If yes, Well there's the problem.
If no, then we've established that these countries have the same information and are at the very least just as qualified as you are to assess him. These leaves us with two possibilities;
You both see Trump as someone who knows what he is doing and is just playing a character as part of a strategy, in which case they would have no reason to fear his madman theory schtick, thereby refuting your whole argument.
Or...
You both see Trump as a genuine madman who really would drive the car off the cliff just to stick it to his adversaries.
If it's the latter, then you are admitting Trump is an unhinged maniac, which almost by definition makes him an existential threat to the safety of this country and the world. So please explain to me why this is good thing?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
So are suicide bombers rational? Because their morality says that’s the right thing to do.
If their morality says that's the right thing to do, then the rational course of action is to do it.
The premises of their morality is what you're taking issue with, not their rationality. They're two different things.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Logic (aka rationality) can only begin once we have a set of premises established.Not if...
No, there is no IF. This is a fact, that's how it works. To argue anything else is to admit that on it's most basic level, you do not know what logic is.
...we’ve already established that the system in which you defined morality is already illogical (aka irrational).
No, we haven't. This is your claim that you just keep repeating no matter how many times I show you in painstaking detail is wrong.
Logic isn't limited to the real world, that's the point.…Be that as it may, my claim was limited to the real world so you stepping in a realm outside of that and using it as an answer for the real world is incorrect and nothing but besides the point
Again, you do not understand what a hypothetical is or how it works.
You're making an argument. That argument contains logic. Hypotheticals test the logic of your argument. Testing the logic of your argument is done effectively by removing the content and replacing it with alternative content where biases and other mental obstacles are less pronounced. That's not changing the subject, it's demonstrating the problem with what you're arguing.
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you, but I strongly suggest you spend some time understanding what hypothetical examples are and why they're useful, it will greatly improve your ability to understand reality.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
morality ISN’T rational
Again, I explained why this statement is false in detail.
To be rational is by definition to be in accordance with logic.
Logic is the tool we used to reach a conclusion from a given set of premises.
Morality is a system by which we judge actions in accordance with a moral standard.
The standard, whether we're talking about morality or anything else, is the starting point aka premises. Logic (aka rationality) can only begin once we have a set of premises established.
Therefore, the act of judging actions in accordance with a moral standard is by definition the use of logic, which is by definition a rational practice.
The fact that the premises themselves are subjective has absolutely nothing to do with whether the process that follows is rational.
Here, let's apply the classic example of how logic works to demonstrate.
P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
[Insert logic here]
C: Socrates is mortal
Notice how we get from P1 & P2 to the conclusion. That tool we used to connect the dots to end up at C is the same regardless of whether P1 & P2 are real or not. If we change P1 to "all men are immortal" then logic dictates that the conclusion be changed to "Socrates is immortal". That's what being rational looks like and it applies the same either way.
Now let's try morality.
P1: Morality is about reducing harm
P2: Murder is harmful
[Insert logic here]
C: Murder is immoral
Doesn't matter if you agree with P1 or P2, what follows is a rational process.
Well when one uses there imagination possibilities are endless which was why my argument was solely based on reality, because that’s the world I live in.
Logic isn't limited to the real world, that's the point. If you do not understand that the logic you apply is just as valid in any real world circumstance as it would be towards any imaginary circumstance then you do not know what logic is.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well I already gave you my conclusion from my premise.What rational support is there for morality in general? Because if it is indeed subjective then nothing subjective is rational so we might as well all be nihilists.
If your premise is that nothing subjective is rational then your premise is wrong and apparently you didn't read a word I just said because I explained it all in detail.
Hypotheticals do not need to be realistic to be useful.Except they do (the context of this discussion is included).
No, they don't, and by claiming they do you're only demonstrating that you do not understand how hypotheticals work.
Again, hypotheticals are a test of your logic. The test is performed by stripping the content off of the actual example and replacing it with imaginary content to see if the logic holds. In many cases, the more extreme the imagined content the better because the sillier it is the more it tends to expose the logic of it, which is the whole point.
So when someone rejects a hypothetical on the basis of unrealistic content they're either demonstrating that they do not understand how logic works by showing themselves unable to take their attention away from the content (which is entirely sperate from the logic) or they're being disingenuous because they know their logic will not hold if applied to another example.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Black or white fallacy. Equality is not an either/or, it's a spectrum.
The possibility of perfection is not necessary to determine good from bad. Good is simply that which gets us closer to perfection. If 50/50 is perfect, then that provides is with the basis we need to determine that 51/49 is better than 80/20. So unless your point is that the inability to achieve perfect equality within our society means it doesn't matter if the top 1% hold 99% of the nation's wealth, then there absolutely is value in continuing to strive for equality regardless of whether we could ever achieve it.
Whether perfect equality should be the goal is of course an entirely different conversation.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
You want to talk rational support? What rational support is there for morality in general? Because if it is indeed subjective then nothing subjective is rational
To be rational by definition means to be in accordance with logic.
Logic is the tool that's gets us to a conclusion *from* a given set of premises. Logic does not tell us whether those premises are true or correct. Think of a piece of paper with a dots on it. The dots are your premises. The picture you get once all the dots are connected is the conclusion. Logic is the ability to connect those dots, so they would be symbolized by the lines themselves.
The standards one uses for morality are the premises, or the dots. The moral determination is the conclusion, or the picture. To get there, regardless of whether we're talking about morality or trying to figure out who won a game of chess, requires logic thereby making that process rational by definition.
Objectivity vs subjectivity is a completely different concept. Morality is subjective because the dots themselves will always be subjective. Whether you're using fundamental concepts of human well being to draw your dots or whether your dots are coming from whatever the bible said, you're still determining for yourself what you're going to base it off of before logic can even be applied (in other words, it's whatever you say). But once those dots are drawn, the process to reach the conclusion is objective, because logic (like math) isn't a matter of opinion.
you misconstrued my claim to think using an unrealistic what if hypothetical is responsive.
Hypotheticals do not need to be realistic to be useful. In fact in many cases the more unrealistic the better they are to achieve their purpose, which is to test whether your position is rationally defensible. If it is, the hypothetical will demonstrate that, if it isn't the hypothetical will show that as well. You can refute any particular hypothetical as being non analogous, but I always find it telling when someone dodges hypotheticals altogether claiming that hypotheticals themselves are some kind of rhetorical trickery. It only feels like that when you are holding a position that doesn't work.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
someone that is unable to live without access to someone else’s body is not treated with the same deference as someone who is able to live without access to someone else’s body, under the pro-choice view
All you did here was regurgitate your claim in a different set of words. What's missing is rational support.
The pro choice view addresses whether the mother can sever the link between herself and the baby she's carrying. That's it, that's all. The treatment of the fetus (as in whether it can survive) is an entirely different matter and one to take up with the god that you pray to.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
What's not the case?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Basically liberals are more open or always open and progressive so much so that they leave the foundation and fundamentals.i.e. the acceptance of same sex marriage leaving the fundamentals of sexuality between man and woman alone.
They're not leaving the foundation behind, the issue is that they have a different foundation altogether. They disagree with you that sex must be between a man and a women, that's the whole point.
Nothing about that is 'change itself must be the goal'.
I'm talking about the law of slavery didn't need to change or end except the way it was ran.
So you're ok with it being legal to own other people as property?
It's because there are people apparently you're just learning this now that believe slavery has never ended but transitioned. Now these are typically minority groups speaking this so it's understandable from their perspective they'll feel this way
At this point you're just playing word games. Slavery has a definition, and not getting called back after a job interview isn't it. People liken modern day oppression to slavery all the time but they do it as a metaphor, no rational human being thinks what's happening to any minority group (at least in the US) today is anything like what happened to most black people prior to the mid 1800's. It's just silly to pretend there's any comparison.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
something Trump takes far more responsibility for than any other individual in our country.disagree. if you dont like the guy you still dont get to shoot him. you cant blame trump for people having TDS, it’s like blaming a victim for being robbed. Perhaps the victim should have done more to avoid the situation, but the robber is nevertheless the one predominantly at fault.
Your response is completely disconnected from anything I've said.
We just agreed that shooting at him was unacceptable, so why are you acting like I suggested otherwise?
The point I just made is that Trump is largely responsible for the dark turn our political discourse has taken, because he is. Have you never heard him speak? All he does is insult people and scare his voters into thinking his political opposition is the enemy.
Harris and Walz both denounced it, Kamala even called Trump herself afterward.I haven’t heard that. I’m not saying i dont believe you. i’m just saying i dont neccesarily believe you. give not a report, but the video of her denouncing it PUBLICLY. I havent seen any video proof that she has denounced it
Well this took all of 5 seconds to find...
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
would you say that literally everyone is treated unfairly as no two people are treated with the exact same deference?
No two people are treated the same. Whether that alone constitutes unfairness is a matter what your threshold for unfairness is. You can claim person A is being treated unfairly because their slice of cake was 0.01% smaller than person B's, but at that point you're just diluting the word down to the point where it no longer carries any meaning.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Then I assume you’re pro-life? Because the unborn aren’t treated with the same deference as everyone else who is born.
They are treated the same. If I was unable to live without access to your body and you refused to grant me that access, I would die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
rofl, he was secret hitler all along, COMEON MANNN!
Turns out people know more about a candidate after they get put under a microscope. Shocking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Better than normal before opposing the deep state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCFtiqzFCLg"[he has] A will to risk to make things better" - Jessie Jackson"He's a serious person, who is an effective builder" - Jessie Jackson"He should run for president" - Oprah Winfrey
Wow, a man who's greatest asset is his ability to con people... coned people into believing he was something that he wasn't. Real convincing.
I guess you can add me to the deep state list of yours then. In 2011 or so I thought Trump would be a great choice for president and was excited at the prospect of him running. When he was interviewed and said he had people looking into Obama's birth certificate and "couldn't believe what they were finding" I was genuinely shook thinking maybe there really is something to this birtherism stuff after all...
And then I watched as he humiliatingly tried to take credit for Obama releasing his birth certificate pretending like that was the point all along. Watching him give that speech is what made me realize for the first time what con and an imbecile he really was. Most people have come to a similar realization, whether it was the shock of how ignorant he was in real life, the racism, the lying... Running for president has a way of exposing who you really are. The fact that people saw it and changed their minds is evidence of how people who are not in a cult maintain the ability to see something with their own eyes and recognize what it is. Nothing more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
correction: people creating unprecedented circumstances.
Right, Trump is just such a normal guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I saw the title and fully expected GP to be the OP
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I never disagreed with it. I don't think you understand what this conversation has been about.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
I’m asking everyone here about the assassination:Questions:Was it justified? If so, how and why.Will there be more?Does it bother you that Kamala or Walz did not denounce it?
It was not justified, it is a grotesque act taken by a deranged individual.
I hope there will be no more but unfortunately the political discourse in our country right now is very favorable for these kinds of acts to continue, something Trump takes far more responsibility for than any other individual in our country.
Harris and Walz both denounced it, Kamala even called Trump herself afterward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So the deep state is anyone in or affiliated with government who supports Harris.Hey if you think the set of "warmongering liars breaking precedent by public endorsements" overlaps perfectly with "anyone in or affiliated with government who supports Harris" that's your call. It's not what I said.
You posted a purposefully and abusively long post to list everyone who signed a letter endorsing Harris all to make the point that these people are the deep state. That translates exactly to 'the deep state is anyone in or affiliated with government who supports Harris'.
And as far as "breaking precedent", have you not considered the guy they'll be voting against? It's the usual right wing BS of blaming the people reacting to unprecedented circumstances for being themselves unprecedented, an argument so ridiculous it can't be taken as anything other than gross disingenuousness.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Don Jr. brought the stuff to Trump and Trump said he didn't want to work with Russians, even if there was dirt on Hillary.
This is just made up nonsense. The closest the Mueller report comes to this is quoting Trump's handwritten response to Mueller's questions saying he had no recollection of Don Jr. sharing with him that he was meeting with a Russian official. So in other words, a self denial. Not exactly iron clad.
Meanwhile, the slightest bit of rational scrutiny shows this idea to be downright ridiculous. Don Jr. sent the email confirming the meeting on June 7th. Within hours of that message being sent, Donald Trump announced a "major speech" to take place the following week on the Clintons. And as the report detailed, the meeting was a bust. Coincidentally, the major speech Trump promised never happened.
Trump was obviously informed and ready to coordinate his campaign activity around it. Moreover, Trump has since defended his campaign taking the meeting and said he would have used the information, so not only are you wrong in the facts you're also saying the opposite of what Trump himself said he would do.
There is absolutely nothing tangible as evidence that says Trump gave polling data kmowingly to the Russian government. There IS, however, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which is how Russia got ahold of polling data. But that was not the Trump Campaign directly giving polling data to the Russian government.
Trump's campaign chairman literally admitted it.
Trump and his campaign also had no idea Roger Stone was regularly communicating with Russia. This is laid out in detail Mueller's report.
It doesn't say they had no idea, it said they had no evidence. Huge difference.
That aside, do you not find it odd that all of these people so closely tied to Donald Trump were regularly in contact with Russian officials? Do you seriously not think Trump had any idea or that this isn't a direct reflection of Trump's leadership and values?
There is a reason that Mueller ended his report saying he could not find evidence Trump was colluding with Russia.
Correct, because they never investigated collusion since there is no legal statute against it. They investigated conspiracy which is a much higher bar. And with that said, the report never said they had no evidence, the report is filled with evidence. What they lacked as the report made clear several times is evidence sufficient to secure a conviction, because that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as it should because that's the rightful standard in a court of law. But this isn't a court of law, this is the court of public opinion so imposing that same standard here is ridiculous and you know that.
If you would just ignore Washington Post and NYTimes and NY Post and Washington Examiner and read these documents yourselves you would have a much better idea of what happened.
You really need to take your own advice.
Created:
-->
@Mall
So you're liberal looking for constant change while claiming liberal is actually conservative.
Please explain how "change is not the goal" = "looking for constant change".
while claiming liberal is actually conservative.
You're completely making this up, I said nothing like this.
Owning people or the law to make it legal didn't have to change. Just the way ownership was ran needed to be changed or reverted really.
What are you talking about?
Besides it is highly disputed that slavery ever ended anyway.
No, it's not. Why would you say something so ridiculous?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So, when they ask you who is in the deep state; here is a subset of the suspect list:
So the deep state is anyone in or affiliated with government who supports Harris. Real meaningful.
According to Fox News:Nine high-ranking former national security and military officials who signed a letter Sunday endorsing Vice President Harris’ run for the Oval Office also signed a letter nearly four years ago dismissing Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop as Russian disinformation ahead of the 2020 election, Fox News Digital found.A reminder of who those were:
The right wing spin on this story never ceases to amuse me. What they expressed in that letter was common sense and perfectly legitimate given the context. This is such a nonsense issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
No because my point was just about having his own mind so you took this miles away from my destination of the point I was making.
No, the original point you made is that Trump is the only one who has an independent mind, which is where my flat earth example and expansion of it explaining how we tell if someone is independently minded comes in. You ignored all of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Thank you he's in a class all by himself, including his mind too, you know you made my point.
A point I already refuted as meaningless. I never disputed that he has his own mind, I did however use the flat earth example to show first of all that demonstrating independent thought is not limited to believing things no one else does, and second that independent thought of the kind you seem to be boasting about is not a virtue. Do you have a response to any of that?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Do you believe in more things changing or remaining as is or reverting?
This question is way too vague to offer a meaningful answer.
Change is not the goal, it's the practical effect of living in a society that is still learning. A century and half ago we were just reconciling with the idea that we shouldn't own people as property. A century ago we still hadn't figured out that women and black people should have equal rights. Now we're finally coming to grips with the fact that many people in our society aren't born into the manly man girly girl dichotomy we have always assumed. These changes will continue as we continue to learn more about who we are as human beings.
You'll need to be more specific if you want to know how I feel about any given issue.
So republicans are not liberal now .If they were you'd be Republican.
Correct. If I were voting in the late 1800's I'd probably vote republican straight down the ballot. Today's republican party is a disgrace to its historical stature.
Created:
-->
@Mall
So republicans can be liberal.
The republican party at it's inception was the liberal party of our government, the democrats were the conservative party. During the civil rights era however the parties realigned and switched sides.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Why do you particularly vote democrat or republican?
I fundamentally believe that we as a society should be coming together to solve our problems. We won't always get things right, but if we're approaching issues in good faith then we will learn from our mistakes and continue to improve.
Government is the vehicle by which this happens, so I believe government is the instrument by which our problems get solved. So when I Iook up and I see one party who believes in finding solutions through government, and one party who seems to want nothing more than to destroy the government so that it can't accomplish anything, I will vote for the former and diametrically oppose the latter.
Times have changed though. The above applies moreso to the pre Trump era, today's republican party is nothing more than an authoritarian cult of personality. Until that changes I would never consider voting republican.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So dangerous that suddenly all those 'crimes' he committed before when he was shaking Oprah's hand become interesting.
If there was some clever point imbedded within your post I missed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Who else has been like President Trump as president in the White House?
Absolutely no one. What's your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
and with the uncertain future of the site...
Did I miss something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Um, why is a govt agency endorsing a fucking political candidate.they didn't.The conflict of interest is off the charts.except that it never happened.The IRS is now just another weaponized pile of shit just like all the other 3 letter agencies except they aren't even trying to hide it.nope.
It really is amazing watching disinformation grow from being an incorrect factoid to the inspiration of wrongheaded rage, and to it's eventual resting place... A piece of the foundation of a worldview totally disconnected from reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Nothing like having your own mind.President Trump probably the only one that has his own mind in office .
Believing the earth is flat doesn't make you independent minded, it means you're disconnected from reality. If the majority of people believe something it's probably for good reason.
The mechanism for telling whether someone is thinking for themselves is to question them and see if they can explain why they believe what they do. Trump is incapable of that, which makes the long repeated observation so many Trump insiders have shared that he parrots the last thing he heard far more believable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
How many of you think Amber is not banned user TWS
I don't think they are the same. As many issues as I had with TWS he was at least willing to go back and forth, Amber is to enthralled in her own bubble that she blocks anyone who disagrees with her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The deep state is nothing more than vague and unfalsifiable bogeyman concocted by MAGA as another way to do what they always do; paint Trump as the victim. The truth is that Trump is a complete ignoramus who doesn't understand how anything works so his ideas and impulses are often dangerous, which in turn puts the people who actually know better in a tough position so they often fight back. To every other president this was a good thing, getting it right is what matters. But with Trump it's so about power and authority, so of course it's a conspiracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The 2nd amendment implies people have a right to secure a free state using arms individually. Your error before was conflating this right with the right to do anything you want just because you believe you're securing a free state using your arms.
It is a very good point, but the problem I pointed out at the end of my last post still remains. Unlike the immunity example you cited or any other for that matter, this individual right is one that is granted against the state itself. So while you can make a moral argument against it, there is no way to resolve this conflict without constitutionally empowering the state to decide whether force against itself is legitimate.
Trump's lawyers while arguing about immunity (and they're stuck in the conceptual sinkhole too) have basically said that POTUS has the right to do whatever he thinks the constitution charges him to do as opposed to "he has the right to do what the constitution actuallycharges him to do, err on his interpretation when doubt is reasonable".
Great, so when Trump called up Georgia and told them to find 11,780 votes, the argument that he thought the election was stolen and he was carrying out his official duty to rectify it is not a defense, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Out of context reporting can be extremely convincing and misleading. They can edit your words to make you appear to say anything you want. Functionally no different than an AI fabricating words.
Accepting what person A says about person B as the truth involves an obvious level of trust in person A which is up to reach individual to decide. Accepting what person B says about person B is entirely different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'm not the one cheering the supreme court's interpretation.Nor are you one who is cheering the constitution if you don't think there is an interpretation that you find 'reasonable'.
I don't know what this means. If I disagree with an interpretation I'm of course not going to cheer it, that's entirely different from whether I would advocate for it to be followed.
Q: Why give only the first reason?A: That is the reason which has the strongest implications about the military capacity civilians should have. You don't need a canon to defend yourself from thieves. You don't need a canon to hunt. You may need a canon to ensure the security of a free state.
Exactly, so listing other reasons for the second amendment doesn't cancel out the point I'm making.
Arguing that is says X is not arguing that X is morally or practically perfect.
I've already pointed out that this in no way refutes anything I have said. Why do you keep conflating these two things, or more accurately pretending that I'm conflating them?
I already expanded on the difference between defending what someone says vs defending their right to say it, it's the latter that I'm arguing you would have to do under the interpretation of the 2A that it's advocates seem to accept.
"the people" is a multidimensional phrase as used at that time, it refers to all individuals as well as the collective they make up. In terms of rights guaranteed against government "the people" can only be (correctly) interpreted as an individual right.
Exactly. And my point is that you cannot enshrine a right to each individual citing a responsibility that the individual does not have the right to act upon. That's every bit as incoherent as me claiming that Trump's pardons were unconstitutional.
When you argue about how violence could be used to ensure proper governance you are now under normal rules of evidence and logic and no longer talking about what the document means because it simply does not say.
Evidence and logic by whose standards? Are you saying that it is up to the government to decide whether the force applied against the government is legitimate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It's mostly supposed to be a threat. Don't be silly. You want a government that is slightly afraid of being lynched if they step out of line.
If that's the goal it seems assassination attempts would fulfill it
If we are talking security of a free state it would mostly refer to outside invaders.
Then that would be at odds with the entire idea that the second amendment exists to protect the people from the tyranny of their own government. Under your interpretation, the government would be fully within their constitutional rights to ban all firearms full stop.
So no he didn't take actions because he thought Trump was Hitler but because he didn't want an end to the bloodshed in the Ukraine most likely.
Your position with regards to this particular issue was determined well before you understood good intentions
This guy whose actions you seem to support
Don't be stupid.
Me and you both know Trump would end it by calling in threats to Putin's life and then forcing both sides to make consessions they Don't want to make
You're delusional. Trump idolizes Putin and everything he has signaled suggests he will step aside and let Russia take Ukraine.
I don't know why you think he's some kind of Superman, he's shown himself to be nothing but an imbecile who makes promises he doesn't even understand let alone is able to keep. Remember when Mexico was gonna pay for that wall? Remember when he was going to wipe out the debt? Remember when he was going to unleash his new healthcare plan in two weeks that was going to be so amazing and cover everyone at a fraction of the cost? The only thing he's doing that he understands is manipulating gullible and uniformed people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Double R's argument suggests that each individual has the right to decide for themselves when the security of the state is in danger
It's not my argument, that's what follows from defining "the people" as "each individual" given the first half sentence of the amendment.
The phrase "well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment highlights a collective defense function, not individual vigilantism. A militia, historically and legally, was understood to be a group organized under the state's authority for collective security to defend against various threats, not individuals taking law into their own hands.
Exactly, if that's what they were talking about then "the people" would be referring to these organized malitia's acting under the states authority, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry who decides to take a trip to Walmart.
Created:
Posted in:
Now are you claiming to make a point relevant to the OP, epistemology, or the objective meaning of the bill of rights? because I'm not seeing it.
This is the path you took us down. We were talking about what the second amendment means and you took the position that it's meaning is objective (and of course you're the one who has it right) and therefore anyone who disagrees with the "real" meaning is objectively wrong. And then you argued that because the opposition is objectively wrong, their decisions do not need to be respected as legitimate, even if they are the judge or the person who is legally designated to make the final decision. So essentially, you're arguing that the law enforces itself through objectivity, by which you really mean that it's up to you personally to decide whether the law is followed, because your ability to understand it is better than everyone else's.
Insofar as arbitration is already a mutually accepted resolution all you have said is that mutually accepted resolutions are mutually accepted resolutions.
Arbitration isn't a resolution, it's a process.
That's your whole problem; you don't respect any resolution you disagree with as legitimate.Nobody does
Nonsense. I just gave you an example.
You seem to think there is no distinction between respecting a determination and respecting the process by which that determination was derived. The latter is where it's legitimacy comes from. I do not respect the supreme court's immunity ruling, I think it is among the worst decisions they've ever made. I recognize it as legitimate though and if I were in a position of power I would not pretend that until it's overturned perhaps decades from now, this is the law of the land.
That's not me pretending anything, what I respect is the system and in no practical sense would any legal decision make it worth throwing the entire system overboard.
The trouble is when I am ordered to accept the fallible as the definition of truth.
This is pure fantasy, nothing remotely like that happening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You would be happy if they decided in groups of 60 or more?
I'm not the one cheering the supreme court's interpretation.
2nd amendment says each individual has the right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the sentence gives the most important reason, presumably so no future government would be tempted to try and limit the definition of 'arms' to...
It doesn't say or imply that. It explicitly states that the reason is to ensure the security of a free state. That's a very wide umbrella, and like I've said, since the constitution vests that responsibility to "the people" then it follows that it's up to the people to determine how to accomplish this.
I think this is extremely vague which is problematic, but if you then determine that "the people" is referring to the individual citizenry, then you can't claim the individual citizenry is wrong when they see a political figure as a threat and decide to nullify it.
Is that ridiculous? Of course, every bit as ridiculous as the supreme court deciding that the President is entitled to full immunity for any crimes he commits through his government agencies, but here we are.
Created: