Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Good point, but then if DART decided they aren't going to allow left wingers on their page, then you would have to respect their rules and abandon your account.
Yes, and I absolutely would. Not because I respect Darts decision but because if that’s how they want to treat me because of my political leanings I have no place here. A debate site without oppositional voices would crash instantly, if ownership of the site wants to put a torch to it that’s their right.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But someone who is against the state killing people and is pro deportation (assuming significant chance of death which there is) should be fine with life imprisonment for murderers with no food given to them (death by starvation). You aren't killing them; you are letting them die. But then, the death penalty is more humane than a death by starvation.
If I locked you in my basement without feeding you and you starved to death, I would rightfully be charged for murder.
You are trying really hard to conflate two different things. Why? You’re wrong on this. Deportation =/= Murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
MAGA people like his pro ICE and right wing on RSG beliefs.
They like his rhetoric. Most have no idea what his policies on the subject are, hell I don’t even think he knows.
What about Swing states controlled by democrats? Wouldn't they want to lock in their power? Like, why wouldn't Virginia join the compact before Youngkin? They had the votes.
Because they still have to answer to the voters of their state, and their voters love the fact that they get to play a pivotal role every election. They’re not choosing against their own power, they’re choosing in favor of it.
Maybe I should vote for someone that isn't acting in their own best interests; but the country's best interests (3rd party). Biden is putting party before country; something the left gets angry at MAGA politicians for doing.
First of all, I keep explaining why you’re wrong about that but you keep pretending as if what you’re saying is not at issue. If you’re going to keep going back and forth you could at least recognize when a claim is in dispute.
Biden has a far better chance of beating Trump than Cenk or Williamson. Either respond to my points explaining why or just drop it.
Second, when I point out that people act in their own personal interests I’m speaking broadly which applies to groups. Any individual might be able to set themselves aside for a greater cause, but once people start working within groups that dynamic starts to change.
Third parties would be no different. Many start off as well intended, but once someone (and especially the people they surround themselves with) gets a taste of real power they do the same thing the rest of us do. Very few individuals cling to their principals in that situation and there’s no way to know who those individuals would turn out to be.
The US public is over Jan 6
Right wingers are over January 6th. Independents and swing voters certainly remember it.
Roe V Wade being overturned is something society knew the GOP wanted.
It doesn’t matter. Most people do not follow day to day politics or spend hours a day arguing with people on debateart.com. People react to change when they see it with their own eyes. Many people had no idea what would happen if Roe v Wade got overturned, they’re just now figuring it out. That is why this issue us so galvanizing and it will continue to be until the right aligns itself with where the rest of the country is.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That is the majority of what conservatives believe. But would you censor all conservative speech?
Why do conservatives love to conflate bigotry and conservatism to then turn around and play the victim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Just remember the rules, nuance and context are not permitted
So nuance and context do matter? Good to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think it would be better to just not promote it and promote people saying 2+2=4 way more. Let them say it; just don't promote it nearly as much with algorithms.
We're talking about free speech, so in that context your opinion is irrelevant. People have a right to do with their platforms what they will. You are free to disagree with them, but you don't get to infringe on their free speech by telling them what they must allow on their own platforms.
Nazi talking points should be allowed to be said on the internet, but don't promote it; and promote other stuff.
That's exactly how it works now, so what's your issue?
Instagram wants the best of both worlds and that's what I object too. These companies should pick if they want to be a publisher or platform.
There are definitely some complicated questions about where the line is drawn, but every platform gets to establish basic rules (terms of service) and as long as they are acting within that they are generally fine. The nuances behind what counts as enforcement vs what makes one a publisher is different conversation.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You believe in this context, there is a difference between killing and letting die
There is a difference, but it's circumstantial. If sending an individual back will result in that individual's certain death then that difference is minimal. But we're not talking about any individual, we're talking about a blanket policy position. From that angle one has to consider far more than just whether some people will die, such as what happens if we don't deport people.
These are complicated and nuanced issues, that's why I object to you painting it as a contradiction based on such an overly simplistic notion. It isn't representative of what people are saying or what they necessarily believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Someone that agrees with Bernie Sanders 100% of the time would win pretty much as many voters as Bernie Sanders would in the general. Someone that agrees with Trump 100% of the time would win pretty much as many voters as Trump would win in the general.
That is just not true. You're assuming people vote based on policy, which they absolutely do not. Most people have no idea what the policies of their stated candidate are (ask Trump voters what he plans to do), they vote based on how they feel. And for someone new to come along and declare themselves a candidate for president with no public background they're immediately starting off on a skeptical lense because it looks like they just want power.
Then maybe the blue states could have a similar framework to the National Popular vote compact; where the bill only takes into effect when 270 electoral votes agree to the bill.
Every state that had signed up is a blue state.
The compact will never work for the same reason the major political parties would never work together to get rid of third party candidates: people are always going to act within their own personal best interests.
The states that vote blue support the compact because we all know democrats would benefit from a popular vote system which they are aligned with. Red states will oppose it because it hurts republican candidates. And swing states will oppose it even more fervently because they are the benefactors of our current system. Every 4 years these handful of states get all the attention because they have all the power. There is no way they would agree to give that up in the name of what's best for everyone.
The 2016 and 2020 polls both had the democrat doing better than they actually did. Trump outperformed the 2016 and the 2020 polls
That's why I pointed out that this was over the past few years. Both of your examples are pre January 6th and more importantly, pre overturning of Roe v Wade. Since then democrats have outperformed the polls in nearly every single election.
6 in 10 Americans Doubt Biden's Mental Capability: Poll | TIME. This includes many people that would vote for him over Trump; nobody says this about Dean Phillips or Cenk Uygur or Marian Williamson.
Again, none of those candidates have been subjected to the machine. Joe Biden was very popular until he started running, when your face is being plastered on Fox news and OANN every night being portrayed as senile or corrupt that will change how the public sees you. Biden was in public life for 50 years and served for 8 years as the Vice President yet look at how effective the attack machine was against him. No one even knows who these other candidates are so imagine what they would do to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
A lot of people want to ban saying 2+2=5 (by randos that think it's correct) when in reality, they should point out 2+2=4.
No one is trying to ban people from being able to say 2+2=5. What people are doing is refusing to give a platform to those spreading such lies. That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. You are entitled to say whatever you want, you are not entitled to have others provide you with a platform to say it. And again, any attempt to change that is the opposite of free speech because people have a right to use their free speech to say "you're not spreading this garbage on my platform".
If a POTUS says 2+2=5 and they know they are lying, then they should be banned from public office (but if they actually believe 2+2=5, then they should merely get fact checked).
The only acceptable ban would come in the form of being voted out. No one else (other than the legal system for a legitimate legal reason) gets to decide whether someone can run for office.
we live in a society inundated with people who do not accept being rational as a priority.This is a problem, but how do you change this?
If there was a good answer to that question half the country wouldn't believe the election was stolen.
And how do you know you aren't the one that is manipulated?
I don't, but I take every precaution I can to ensure that is not the case. I spend many hours on this site because I'm genuinely interested in hearing what those who disagree with me have to say, and I want to know if there is any information I am not aware of so there should be no one better to provide it. I also watch Fox news on occasion just to get that other side. If you are truly open to hearing every perspective and every angle, and you verse yourself in understanding logical fallacies and other manipulation tactics, you make yourself as difficult to be manipulated as one can be.
how do you know you are right and MAGA is wrong and not the other way around?
Again, I don't, but for me the tell is when the other side cannot coherently defend their viewpoint and has to resort to denying basic facts about reality which they would not do in any other situation.
A few weeks ago I went back and forth with a member for weeks about whether Trump incited the J6 riots. The disagreement came down to how English works and specifically the role that context plays in understanding someone's words. He essentially had to argue that Trump's words can only be taken in isolation and had to be taken literally. I found that not only absurd because it defies everything we know about how communication works, but it also flagrantly conflicts with everything we know about how Trump in particular communicates.
The total weakness of this argument, and the weakness of every MAGA argument when pushed to its logical ends continues to confirm for me that they are every bit as wrong as they appear on their face.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They work together on keeping 3rd parties out (or at least irrelevant). It benefits them; it harms everyone else.
That is absolutely not how it works.
You keep portraying this as mainstream parties vs third parties, that is not the battle. Third parties in our current system are not a threat to win, the only impact they can have is to be a spoiler, so whichever party stands to benefit will bolster that third party while the other will try to take it down
That's exactly what we're seeing. Kanye West's flirtation with a third party run in 2020 was entirely a creation of the Trump campaign, and Cornell West's campaign donations have come almost entirely from republicans. RFK Jr.'s campaign has gone back on forth. Fox news had him on regularly trying to bolster his campaign right after he left the Democratic party to run as an independent, then they attacked him when they learned that polling showed he would take more votes from Trump. Then they stopped attacking him when the polling flipped and showed his candidacy took more votes from Biden. That seems to now be flipping again so what follows is predictable.
It's basic human nature, people are going to do whatever is in their own personal best interests. Third parties are not a threat so there is no reason for any political party to treat them as such, but they are spoilers so that's exactly what the campaigns are using them for.
There are photos of Trump with Clinton.
The Clintons attended Trump and Melania's wedding. They used to be on friendly terms, that changed when Trump ran against her. Perfectly normal human behavior, not conspiracy.
2016; Trump vs Clinton. 2020; Trump vs Biden. The politicians in 2020 are less popular than 2016
Again, this is because our politics is more divided than it has been in our lifetimes. There was a time when the presidency was respected and it was expected that both parties would rally around the president in a time of need. That is completely gone. News networks now operate as 24/7 prapoganda networks, and with social media you no longer need credentials to be able to spread your views to millions of people. We do not live in the same times.
The elites make recommendations and promote those recommendations. The voters pick from the options.
That is not how it works. Candidates decide for themselves whether they want to run based on the protects of them winning. No one picked Ron Desantis, he ran because he managed to build a large national profile so at the time he shared to have a really good shot. This is why politicians launch "exploratory committees", it's a committee whose job is to determine whether the candidate can really appeal to voters on a national stage.
The reason there are so few options is because there are only a few individuals out there that have a real chance of winning the voters over. Anyone who doesn't will just waste their time and the massive amount of money it takes to run a political campaign.
So then blue states should do rank choice voting for POTUS elections and that sets the precedent for battleground states to eventually follow suit.
Not opposed to it in principal but would not support it unless implemented nationally otherwise all that would do is bolster the prospect of a third party spoiler. If only the blue states did it then that would increase the odds of a third party winning one or two of the blue states thereby handing the presidency over to the republican candidate. That's what third parties do. National popular vote with ranked choice voting would be ideal, but that will never happen.
He right now is losing the popular vote to Trump (2024 General Election: Trump vs. Biden vs. Kennedy vs. West vs. Stein Polls | RealClearPolling)
Irrelevant. We're talking about actual elections, not polling data 7 months out. Clinton was winning every poll heading into November 2016, we all know how that turned out.
Biden will probably lose to Trump in 2024 because people think he's mentally asleep.
I seriously doubt that. People think he's asleep because that's what Fox news tells them to believe, but as people have started to pay more attention (which will only grow as we get closer) they are seeing that this narrative is complete nonsense. You are also disregarding Trump's many flaws catching people's attention, including his own cognitive impairment along with his complete buffoonishness, childishness, and narcism on full display in these criminal proceedings.
Dean Phillips, Cenk Uygur, or Marian Williamson would be demolishing Trump.
Nonsense. They have no appeal to a larger audience and only seem as viable as they do now because they haven't been subjected to the attack machine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
that would be the opposite of free speech because you would thn be taking away the right of others to speak their minds in opposition.Yes; and the fact checkers can have their free speech when they post a fact check article saying 2+2=4 instead of 5.
Right, so what is your issue?
But then how do you figure out what is objectively a lie?
With logic and reason. But that's the problem, we live in a society inundated with people who do not accept being rational as a priority.
I would support outlawing any politician that lies about their policy positions from public office.
That would never work in a democracy. The only solution is for people to wake up and realize they're being manipulated. Until that happens, we get the government we deserve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think the politicians of both parties are in bed with each other and they are screwing over the American people.
Then you're just hopeless, because this theory you're suggesting is beyond absurd and it's factually wrong.
Again, the two parties loath each other, they're not working together on anything. Even if they were, the point of working with someone else on anything is so that both sides can benefit. Politics in terms of elections is a zero sum game. There is no such thing as working with your opposition for a mutually favorable outcome.
And even if we set that aside, the way to nullify third party candidates is to elect popular candidates. It is only when voters don't like either choice that third parties become a factor, so this "plot" would be self sabotage.
And again, all of this is irrelevant because you are ignoring factual reality. "Elites" don't choose the nominees, the voters do. So if this were a plot it would be a nationwide conspiracy between Biden's base and the MAGA cult. That's ridiculous.
If Biden wanted to take down Trump, then he would do rank choice voting.
Again, he does not have this authority. States decide how to run their elections, not the federal government. And even if the government did, it would take an act of Congress. Biden does not have a magic wand, he does not have the choice to do this.
Just because I agree with you on some policy positions doesn't mean you're qualified to hold the nuclear codes.All that matters with nuclear codes is you don't send any nukes flying (maybe unless we get attacked first); it's easy.
All that matters? Wow, you're taking the most serious responsibility on earth and acting like it's on par with operating the fryer at McDonald's.
Please take a moment to repeat your position or loud.
And who influences the base? The elites. If the elites said a year ago that DeSantis was beating Trump by 20 percentage points, then the base just follows suit. The elites decided on Trump first, they had that reflect the polling, and the base followed because the base of both parties are sheep.
That is not true. The elites never chose Trump, in fact they all hate him. Early in the race everyone including Fox news was all in on Ron Desantis, they were essentially an arm of his campaign. That did almost nothing because the base wanted Trump, especially (and amazingly) after the indictments.
And again, even setting all that aside, what you're talking about is influenced. That does not support your original assertion. The people are free to be influenced by whomever they want, that is still their choice. No political system is going to fix that and it shouldn't.
Except they won't be held accountable. If Trump shoots someone in public, then most MAGA people will still vote for him; if Trump gets his fat ass in a pool and saves a toddler from drowning to death, then most Never Trumpers will still vote against him (like about 95% in both camps).The vast majority of voters have their mind made up on Trump.
That's irrelevant. We're talking about the difference between having two choices or no choices. Trump was held accountable in 2020 because he lost. The fact that he has the base locked up has nothing to do with the fact that there absolutely is accountability in a two party system.
Local elections are Generic Democrat vs MAGA Republican. In these elections, the generic democrat outperforms.In a Generic Democrat vs Generic Republican election, it's roughly tied.In a Biden vs Generic Republican election, the generic republican wins.We have Biden v Trump.
Correct. In every election where MAGA is on the ticket, the democrats outperform. And Trump is the MAGA candidate. So what is your point? You said Biden underperforms which you cannot say because Biden hasn't ran since 2020, so you're just making stuff up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the left doesn't de bunk it, then they will believe it and your abortion position will get straw manned.
You missed the point entirely. Watch the video, it's a great lesson on propaganda.
Lets say someone said something everyone for the most part believes is false (2+2=5). Let them say 2+2=5, but then have a fact check article stating that 2+2=4.If someone says, "The COVID vaccines cause 2 million deaths.", then let them have free speech, and also have the fact checkers post a link that says how useful COVID vaccienes are.
Free speech means the government cannot stop you from speaking your mind. It does not protect you against criticism from the rest of society, if it did that would be the opposite of free speech because you would thn be taking away the right of others to speak their minds in opposition.
You also miss the point about fact checking. You seem to think you can show someone that their facts are wrong and they'll just change their minds. That's not how people work. A lie repeated often enough will be believed regardless of it's merit, it is not a solution to allow people to spew bullshit and then come from behind them to try and clean it up.
The video explained all of this. I highly recommend watching it.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Value life means we don't kill people. It doesn't mean we are responsible to keep everyone in the world alive. People die, it's the one thing every single one of us will be guaranteed to do. The fact that some people will die as a result of being deported doesn't make it our problem, we're not killing them.
You're really reaching for a conflict here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you believe Trump is saying false things, then debunk those false things.
If you're dumb enough to think democrats are ok with executing babies after birth, there is no debunking it. Like I said, people will believe whatever they want to believe.
Here's a really good video on this kind of nonsense.
You don't think a zygote is a human being; I do. Only one of us is right; censoring us because the government thinks we are incorrect is censorship.
What on earth are you talking about? Who's censoring you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They will always be politically healthy as long as people refuse to vote 3rd party.
And people will continue to refuse 3rd party candidates because voting for them is self defeating.
Sure, in theory, if everyone voted third party then the third party would win, but that’s not how reality works. If everyone in Russia came out against Putin then Putin’s reign would be over. But we're not the Borg.
It would take a major shift in American politics for any third party to be viable, and in the meantime they would continue to accomplish nothing but spoil every election and ensure the most popular candidate loses. That’s all third parties in this system are good for.
Rank Choice Voting solves this.
Correct, which is why I support ranked choice voting 100%. But that's not our system so until it is we have to deal with the system we have.
The democrat elites and the republican elites work together to give us 2 bad options
You can't seriously believe this. Not only does this make absolutely no sense, bit it's just factually wrong and I already explained why. Please respond to the points I made.
No serious candidate challenged BidenWhat made Cenk Uyghur, RFK, Dean Phillips or Marian Williamson not serious? You (as a socialist) agree with Williamson and Cenk more.
I'm talking about seriousness in terms of viability. None of them had a serious shot of winning the White House. The office of the presidency is the highest office in the entire country, people want someone who has shown that they can get the job done. Running a YouTube news network or being born with the last name Kennedy is not going to cut it for the vast majority of Americans, and it shouldn't. Just because I agree with you on some policy positions doesn't mean you're qualified to hold the nuclear codes.
the Republican base rejected all of their other options.That's because they like Trump's vibes and the Non Trump vote got split. This led to the base eventually supporting Trump.
Right... Which means the "elites" didn't pick the nominee, the base did.
If Biden isn't going to get Rank Choice Voting done, then what's the point in voting for him? Trump wins and he takes away democracy. How is that much different than what we have now? We went from 2 parties to 1.
Yes, we went from 2 choices to no choice... So what is it you need me to explain? Do you value choice or not?
The point of democracy isn't to go into a voting booth and be presented with a plethora of viable candidates, the point is that if someone wants to take political office and make decisions on behalf of the people that they be accountable. If you have two choices then there is accountability because you can be voted out. If there is only one choice then there is no accountability. It's that simple.
If Biden wins, he can't get the GOP to agree to stuff, so what's the point in Biden being in the Oval Office?Very similar policies will be passed with Biden vs Trump (except for abortion; which I agree with Trump more on than Biden).
The supreme court comes to mind. If Clinton won in 2016 women would still have control over their bodies, as just one example. Being president is a lot more than just domestic policy (which honestly has far more to do with Congress than the president).
There are many reasons it matters, but when it comes to Trump vs Biden those differences couldn't be more stark. What we learned through the Trump presidency is that this country is held together far less through the law and far more through political norms than we originally realized. Most of us took it for granted that a president would, for example, hold a daily press briefing... Every day. Or would allow the Senate confirmed secretary of state to run America's foreign policy instead of the president's son in law who would then leave office and collect $2 billion from an foreign government he was very friendly with.
But those norms are benign compared to the biggest one Trump took an axe to; conceding the election. And if elected again he will take an axe to every political norm we have on steroids, because unlike in 2016 he has an entire movement behind him to fire every civil service worker in the federal government and replace them not with people who are loyal to the constitution, but loyal to Trump himself. This is a man who openly talks about using his office for political retribution, I don't know if we're being hyperbolic about him "ending democracy" but he will definitely render it unrecognizable by the time he's done. If you understand anything about why the United States has always been the envy of the world, then this isn't a contest.
Biden isn't electable; he's losing the popular vote to Trump.
The polls are close right now but Biden is quickly overtaking Trump as people as starting to pay more attention, which was easily foreseeable and will continue. Plus democrats have outperformed in nearly every election over the past two years. There is no reason to think Trump is a lock, quite the opposite.
But even setting that aside, it's a mistake especially in these polarized times to think just because Biden has low approval ratings that someone else would do any better. No matter who the candidate is they're going to get hit with an onslaught of attack ads and propaganda. On Fox news they're running chyrons like "the Biden crime family" even though they've been investigating the Biden's for years and still can't tell us what the crime is. People will believe anything they want and what they want is to believe their political opposition is worse than they are. It's not a question of whether someone could gain majority support, only how well they'll do against the machine designed to make them look like Hitler.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I already explained this. The former is not necessarily part of the consideration and the latter is nothing more than a byproduct of the position, it is not the point.
For it to be a contradiction you need to show how one’s values need to change in order to jump from one position to the next. That’s not necessary here. If one values life above all else the rest falls into place perfectly consistently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you really think every example is clear cut? And do you really think it matters if it were? Trump goes out there everyday saying that Biden is prosecuting him in NY even though the president has nothing to do with state prosecutions, and he is still claiming that democrats support the execution of babies after birth which is cartoonishly stupid. Reality is only as clear and decisive as people are willing to allow it to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't see it like that; if the election was between Robert E Lee and Hitler, then I hope everyone would vote for someone else.
That’s incoherent. If the choice is between those two, then by definition there is no one else.
Obviously since there are third party candidates there is technically someone else, but the reality is what it is; as long as these two remain relatively healthy and there is no political bomb that significantly changes things, one of these two individuals will be sworn in this coming January.
You can wish that away all you want, that is our reality. And because it is our reality voting for anyone else is nothing more than symbolic garbage that only benefits the candidate you least prefer.
I think our elites have noticed and as a result, they are giving us bad Biden and bad Trump because they know fear creates less 3rd party vote than hope.
This doesn’t make any sense. Not only is this a terrible strategy for either side to purposefully nominate a candidate people don’t want, but we weren’t given these candidates by “the elites”. We ended up with Biden vs Trump because that’s who the party’s bases chose. No serious candidate challenged Biden and the Republican base rejected all of their other options.
If Biden wants to get rid of Trump, then he can implement rank choice voting so the "spoiler effect" goes away. But he won't do that because Biden is just as power hungry as Trump is.
Biden doesn’t have anything to do with that. The presidential election is held independently in each state, the federal government has no say in how that works and even if they did Biden would have to get Congress on board which in today’s polarized climate would be impossible.
To claim Biden is just as power hungry is an absurd statement based on nothing more than lies just like this one. Biden had a good shot in 2016 but didn’t run because he cared more about his family than running for office. Meanwhile Trump was ready to burn the entire country down to avoid leaving in 2020. The two are not comparable.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yes, we said that already. You still have not shown where the contradiction is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
You keep saying "imply, imply, imply, imply".My words are at face value. Why is this not good enough?
Because your words were written in English. Words have meaning, context shapes that meaning, and you don't get to pretend that doesn't matter.
This thing was supposed to be on Mr. O.J. Simpson. You've blown all these other issues into this.... honesty,making claims, implications.For somebody that wasn't really arguing with you, you just aching for something to argue about.
You just wrote 20-30 paragraphs explaining why I am wrong for interpreting your words in a way you didn't intend without a single explanation for why your words should have been interpreted differently or what your original point was. I'm not the one arguing just to argue.
I said you asked two different questions. Is believing in something or knowing something mean the same to you?
As I already explained, knowledge is a subset of belief. When a person says they know something, all they're saying is that they really really believe it.
So when I ask you how you know something, all I'm asking you is how you came to believe that thing. The distinction between knowledge and belief becomes meaningless in that context because the question is in regards to your process, not the strength of your convictions.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's when the 2 come into conflict that people have to pick sides.
Correct, and you have yet to explain how there is a conflict between being anti death penalty and pro deportation. Your only attempt rested on the notion that choosing the lesser of two evils (giving free healthcare to murderers) amounts to endorsing it, which it doesn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I believe in free speech absolutism.
Do you believe it should be legal to tell bomb on a plane?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You mean this collective freak out by the political right about free speech being under attack is not genuine? Shocking.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Anti-abortioners are willing to control women's bodies to prevent homicide and those that want abortion legal are fine with homiciding the unborn in the name of bodily autonomy. I don't like positive connotations with political ideologies; I want honesty.
If you wanted honesty you would stop making this argument and listen to what people are actually saying.
Being willing to accept outcome X in order to achieve outcome Y is a statement that you value X more than Y. That tells us nothing about whether or how much how you value X in isolation, yet you are presenting the argument as if it does. That's dishonest. There is a reason these decisions are difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Just these words " That strongly implies" ties into what I was saying about your misinterpretation .It is based on implication rather than exact wording. This is why you can't pull a quote of me to match your interpretation.What did I word for word say?Trust me it's exactly what I meant. I never used the terms "two wrongs" or " this was right" and " that was wrong". I didn't say " because this particular event was wrong therefore automatically making this right ".
You didn't make that argument explicitly, that doesn't mean your words were misinterpreted. Let's go back to the point in question, here's what I said and your response:
And you shouldn't because you're talking about the only black man in US history to get off of a conviction because he was black.God bless him. That's payment for all the "whites" that got off that evidently were guilty of lynchings.
"God bless him" is a statement of support, and "that's payment for..." is a colloquial term that comes from the concept of erasing a debt owed, which is unquestionably considered a good thing.
You can claim that "two wrongs make a right" is not what you meant to imply, but that is in fact what your words amounted to. If I told you the answer to your question is 2+2, I don't get to tell you you're wrong by "misinterpreting" my answer as 4.
I'm simply labeling what the reason you gave for what they did for Mr. Simpson and apparently not against him.
Why? I didn't ask you to label it nor was there any reason for you to do so. There was no context for which this explanation fits.
"When I asked you if you believe lynchings happened your answer was "I don't know" which it seems to me was given to stay in line with your earlier point that you don't accept evidence you can't personally verify. It's just not serious, nobody goes through doubting everything like that."You did not ask me if I believe lynchings happened.We gotta get this straight. Language is very important.Your question was "how do you know they actually happened?"Very different question from what I believe and I explained what I meant by "know".Now asking me do I believe like a lot of other things I believe but don't know, yes I believe lynchings happened.
So now you're saying that the issue from the start what the definition of knowledge, which for some reason you were working with the idea that to know something is to be absolutely certain of it. That again just comes off as dishonest. If that was your issue from the start you would have raised it then but you didn't.
Knowledge is a subset of belief, so if I ask you how you know something, and you do in fact believe it, there is no reason to quibble with the word knowledge. It's basic colloquial English that the distinction there is meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Proof of the deep state
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I think you're operating with a different definition for evidence. Evidence to me does not include hearsay, anecdotes, etc.
Nothing I've said suggests this to be my definition.
Oh ok that wasn't the question I was getting. I never said anything about two wrongs. You can't quote me on that anywhere here so you misinterpreted that.
You argued that OJ being let off because he was black was just one small peice of a larger end to "balance" things out. That strongly implies that you find it acceptable on the basis of the evils whites have committed against blacks, which is by definition a "two wrongs make a right" argument.
If you're frustrated again, I think I told you about overcoming that. Sometimes people are not always going to understand or answer the questions the way you expect.
The only thing I expect (at least at first) is that people argue in good faith. When I asked you if you believe lynchings happened your answer was "I don't know" which it seems to me was given to stay in line with your earlier point that you don't accept evidence you can't personally verify. It's just not serious, nobody goes through doubting everything like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
"Earlier you talked about lynchings, how do you know they actually happened?"I don't know. I don't know anything outside of witnessing it for myself like the sun I can see for myself. What I have not witnessed I don't know of.
You don't know if lynchings happened? Why bother starting this thread if you won't accept any evidence you didn't see with you're own eyes?
"So what we need is a few thousand more black murderers to get away with killing innocent white people, and this will achieve our ultimate goal of "balance"? Is that right?"Ohh I don't know. We have to think about the history of slavery. Somebody maybe, an historian, researcher, can get you exact numbers accumulated, aggregate over centuries of injustice, I guess you'll have a figure on that scale.
I wasn't asking about numbers. I was asking you whether you really believe two wrongs make a right. But that's fine, you don't seem interested in a serious conversation so I'll leave you be.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Yep. At some point, people have to realize that charges against someone look really suspicious if you only care about them when said person is running for office.
You mean like Hillary's emails?
What the charges look like are irrelevant to the facts. In the current trial now under way we have witnesses (who are almost exclusively Trump handpicked people), documents, tape recordings, and clear circumstances.
We can reasonably argue over what the motivation behind bringing these charges were, but to pretend the charges themselves are not serious and the facts do not point strongly in the direction of him being guilty you're just not a serious person.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Yep. At some point, people have to realize that charges against someone look really suspicious if you only care about them when said person is running for office.
You mean like Hillary's emails?
What the charges look like are irrelevant to the facts. In the current trial now under way we have witnesses (who are almost exclusively Trump handpicked people), documents, tape recordings, and clear circumstances.
We can reasonably argue over what the motivation behind bringing these charges were, but to pretend the charges themselves are not serious and the facts do not point strongly in the direction of him being guilty you're just not a serious person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
First off I don't know what is meant by "consider the evidence ". Is that just reading about what I read online about the case?
It means the same thing it would mean in any other situation. Have you never formed your own conclusion about an event before? Earlier you talked about lynchings, how do you know they actually happened?
"How are the victims of lynchings better off because some black guy in Brentwood gets away with murdering two innocent people?"I don't know about"better off". More so balancing out, more heading towards that. As they say, there's a long ways to go.
So what we need is a few thousand more black murderers to get away with killing innocent white people, and this will achieve our ultimate goal of "balance"? Is that right?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
If Trump is, in fact, "brought to justice", then that'll mean his full acquittal for all the politically motivated lawsuits filed against him by the oligarchs and their lackies. It'll mean that all the illegitimate court-imposed fines he has had to pay in the last 12 months are thrown out and he's recouped for every penny. It'll mean the end of the careers of every judge, prosecutor, and attorney involved in these recent mockeries of justice.And finally, it'll mean that Trump is rewarded for this ordeal with the support of the American public and gets re-elected.
Right. It's the democrats, then it's the entire mainstream media, then it's republicans, then it's biased prosecutors, then it's left wing judges, then it's Trump appointed judges, then it's Trump's own people, then it's a jury of Trump's peers...
Do you ever wonder if the simpler explanation is that maybe it's Trump?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
"And whose story is that?"The jury that voted the not guilty verdict.
You started of this thread asking whether he really did it. Why ask the question if you have no interest in considering the evidence and reaching your own conclusion?
God bless him. That's payment for all the "whites" that got off that evidently were guilty of lynchings.
Payment to who? How are the victims of lynchings better off because some black guy in Brentwood gets away with murdering two innocent people?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
you've been presented tons of times with hard science that indicates we are more than elaborate flesh robots.
Complete and total BS. The most you've ever presented are anecdotal stories of NDE's which is not science.
you reject that science, with irrational reasons. then lack common sense, and conclude to yourself that we can't even know if we are more than elaborate flesh robots.
A definition of "flesh robots" would be a nice start. Once you define it, take note on whether any part of your definition includes a realm of reality that we have no access to and therefore cannot experiment on, and therefore cannot possibly know anything about. That's where common sense should kick in.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you are pro deportation, then you don't want undocumented immigrants getting free healthcare and having their living expenses paid for by the state.If you are anti death penalty, then you do want murderers or similar getting free healthcare and having their living expenses paid for by the state.
There are many reasons one might be pro deportation, such as the belief that immigrants are stealing our jobs and/or pushing down wages, a belief in following our immigration laws, or even straight up bigotry.
Painting the anti death penalty position as wanting murderers to get free healthcare is just downright silly. Housing and caring for murderers is a lesser of two evils outcome, not the driving factor behind the position. It's also a false choice since it costs more to put someone to death than it does to imprison then for life.
I've noticed you have a propensity to do this; when characterizing other people's positions you make out sound like the byproduct of the position is the point, like saying Pro-life really just means you want to control women's bodies, or pro-choice really means you want to kill babies. It's easy to paint anyone as a hypocrite when you do this, just not honest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I won't even mention anything about discrimination on physical appearances, being a man, being not of Caucasian persuasion, etc.
And you shouldn't because you're talking about the only black man in US history to get off of a conviction because he was black.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Long story short , not guilty.
And whose story is that?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
It's absurd to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots
And yet that's exactly what we observe, so if you want an argument that leads to absurdity, try the argument where it's absurd to accept our own observations.
But beyond that, this is yet again another attempt to shift the burden of proof. The argument isn't "we're nothing more than 'flesh robots'", but that if we're anything more there's no evidence of it and therefore no justification to believe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Let's go to #46 where this began:Post 46 is irrelevant to this conversation.Whatever follows you ignoring your own statements which led to the constitution even being mentioned is irreverent. Red herring.
In addition to explaining why post 46 was irrelevant I went on to respond directly to your critique of it. If you know you're wrong you could just say so, or say nothing at all.
Here, since you didn't bother here is the entire post you missed. Again.
Let's go to #46 where this began:Post 46 is irrelevant to this conversation. You took the position that the right to own a gun was more fundamental to being a "real American" than the right to vote. A ridiculous position in my view, but one you are entitled to hold and defend. But when challenged to defend it, offered nothing more than holding up the constitution, to which it was then pointed out that doing so is pure hypocrisy so long as you are unwilling to defend every other principal in it - which you are not.Me pointing out that your defense of your position is hypocrisy, is irrelevant to whether my defense of voting rights is valid.The right wing ethos is that none of this matters, which is my point. It's easy when you already have a job, a car and a license. For many people it's not easy despite the fact that we're talking about something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.That something being voting for POTUS.You claimed that any impedance of proof, fee, or paperwork is violating that right.No, I didn't. I argued that any *unnecessary* impedement to voting was a *practical* violation (ergo the specific phrase I used - "practical disenfranchisement"). There will always be costs on some level associated with voting, my point from the start has always been about the balance between maximizing civic participation and minimizing fraud. Meanwhile your position which you've expressed multiple times is that the former is simply not a value and the latter is all that matters. That is where our disagreement has been.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
There's also something to be said about the inexplicable origin of life, especially human consciousnessIt's also kinda stupid to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots
Following the basic principals of logic is hardly stupid. Google argument from ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
One of the investigators took some of the evidence home, calling into serious question whether the chain of custody was broken. The Mark Furman issue was huge as well because he found the glove but was later discovered on tape calling black people N*ggers and talking about how he and others would frame evidence when they feared there wouldn't be enough for a conviction.
These instances made up a very small portion of the case, but they fed into a larger narrative that a sympathetic jury pool was more than willing to hear based on recent (at the time) incidents. Essentially the strategy of the defense wasn't to question the evidence but to question the credibility of the LAPD itself thereby tainting every piece of evidence against him regardless of whether it was produced by the LAPD or not.
Just a few pieces of evidence literally off the top of my head;
- OJ had multiple previous domestic violence incidents where he beat Nicole to a pulp and threatened to kill her
- around the time of the murders he broke his finger. He was asked about how this happened multiple times and had a different answer each time
- A witness claimed she almost got into an accident with his Bronco just after the time of the murders when OJ was allegedly sleeping
- Blood from murders was found on OJ's Bronco parked at his house
- When informed of his wife's murder never even asked what happened
And then there is the fact that there has never been another suspect. There's more but that's just what I can immediately recall. To doubt he did it is not reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which implies there are other conditions where you can infringe on the issue of voting, else why make a laundry list? The constitution does not say clearly the right to vote shall not be infringed.
This isn't a legal dispute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Let's go to #46 where this began:
Post 46 is irrelevant to this conversation. You took the position that the right to own a gun was more fundamental to being a "real American" than the right to vote. A ridiculous position in my view, but one you are entitled to hold and defend. But when challenged to defend it, offered nothing more than holding up the constitution, to which it was then pointed out that doing so is pure hypocrisy so long as you are unwilling to defend every other principal in it - which you are not.
Me pointing out that your defense of your position is hypocrisy, is irrelevant to whether my defense of voting rights is valid.
The right wing ethos is that none of this matters, which is my point. It's easy when you already have a job, a car and a license. For many people it's not easy despite the fact that we're talking about something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.That something being voting for POTUS.You claimed that any impedance of proof, fee, or paperwork is violating that right.
No, I didn't. I argued that any *unnecessary* impedement to voting was a *practical* violation (ergo the specific phrase I used - "practical disenfranchisement"). There will always be costs on some level associated with voting, my point from the start has always been about the balance between maximizing civic participation and minimizing fraud. Meanwhile your position which you've expressed multiple times is that the former is simply not a value and the latter is all that matters. That is where our disagreement has been.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nothing trollish about agreeing with Jimmy Kimmel. If he is objectively right, there is no reason to say he is wrong.
This is exactly what I mean. Wylted and I were having an adult conversation about whether liberal policies are a detriment to society and you come along plugging in a Jimmy Kimmel bit as of you just made an argument. It's not.
I didn't even watch it because I knew it was going to be some out of context nonsense and I was absolutely right. Kimmel never said anything about liberal cities, he talked about us as a country. Your brain heard that (along with your YouTube propagandists) and plugged in liberal cities in your own because that's all your brain can grasp. It didn't even have to do with government policies, his punch line was that Japanese bathrooms are cleaner than our production rooms... Nothing about that supports your narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Did Mr. OJ Simpson truly do it?
Of course he did. His acquital was entirely an emotional backlash against the LAPD and justice system for it's handling of race relations as well as sympathy towards a popular and charismatic celebrity.
Yes the LAPD screwed up in many of the ways they handled this (putting Mark Furman on the stand, bungling the handling of some of the evidence) but those instances were overblown because of the above. There was and still is no reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.
Created: