Total posts: 5,890
-->
@TWS1405_2
Prove it was illegal for a sitting president to maintain his own presidential records created during his tenure; especially when a federal court says otherwise in regard to the Presidential Records Act and your unsubstantiated opinion here.
They were not "his own" records, they are property of the US government.
The presidential records act explicitly defines what qualifies as personal vs presidential records. It's entire purpose is to restrict what president can simply deem as his own property. Quite sure I've explained this to you before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's try this one more time.Yeah let's. Why do you care if the majority of Trump appointed officials refused to talk to NBC?
You are clearly trolling, no one is this stupid.
I've pretended for the past 6 responses that you are arguing in good faith by explaining that this has absolutely nothing to do with NBC and that they are simply reporting a notable lack of public support for Trump. Something you could easily verify yourself if you ever learned how to use google.
I'm done pretending. Troll someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why would 44 government appointees in any way, shape, or form -Arguably creatures of "the DC swamp"- accurately reflect the pulse of the American voter?
They wouldn't and no one is claiming or suggesting they would.
Let's try this one more time.
The Genesis of this thread is a response to those who claim that Trump was a great president and those of us who don't understand that are just being intellectually dishonest to the point of derangement. Setting aside all of the tit for tat arguments we can go back and forth about, let's take a huge step back and recognize one curious fact.
The people we would all expect to be the most supportive of any president are the people who worked closest to them. These are the people whom the president hand selected and who would have the most reason to be defensive of and loyal to Trump.
Stop, reread the previous paragraph as many times as it takes to absorb before continuing.
So if among this group Trump had almost no public support... That is incredibly odd. That is not something any honest and intellectually curious person can just brush off. That needs to be reconciled somehow.
I'm asking how you reconcile it. I'm asking how you explain the slew of negative comments from people like Bill Barr and John Bolton just to name a few. It's it all a massive conspiracy? Is Trump the worst hiring manager in history? How do you make sense out of the reality that his own hand picked administration insiders are showing no public support for him?
I cannot make my question any more clear. If you have any interest in a real conversation on this subject then talk about the subject of this thread which I just explained yet again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are the one that started the thread with a quote describing an NBC poll of 44 people. It's you who fixated on NBC, not me.
Wow.
First of all, it wasn't a poll. I've explained this numerous times already, you continue to ignore it so you can repeat yourself over and over again.
Second, I've been setting that aside for the entirety of this thread ever since. No matter how many times I tell you this has nothing to do with NBC and everything to do with their public statements which you can Google your very self, you keep bringing it back to NBC. So claiming I am the one fixated on NBC is patently absurd.
Third, this is now my sixth reply to you explaining that this has nothing to do with who spoke with NBC and everything to do with the public statements or lack thereof of the people in question. To not understand my point after the first response is bad enough because it was quite clear, but to sit here 5 responses later and counting demonstrates either a remarkable and significant case of cognitive dissonance or a blatant attempt to troll with bad faith arguments.
Those has nothing to do with NBC or whatever poll you seem to have concocted in your mind. This is about the lack of public support from the people in question. Acknowledge that point or move on, I have no interest in your repeated deflections towards NBC.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's used routinely to keep him from being elected.
As it should be, because his actions do not leave room for a third alternative. Either he's completely and utterly disconnected from reality, or he was acting maliciously to keep himself in power.
Both are (or at least should be) immediately disqualifying politically.
The former is possibly a legal defense, but he ultimately has to put forward that defense while simultaneously telling the country he's capable of leading it, which IMHO disqualifies it as a defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You never did answer why the majority of those 44 refused to talk to NBC. Quite telling on your part, as you seem to agree with me.
I didn't answer the question because it's completely irrelevant to this thread.
The question I began by asking is how do you account for the fact that only 4 members of Trump's entire cabinet have publicly endorsed him, and even more have done the opposite. The point is that if Trump is really so great then why does he have such little support from his own people?
Instead you have spent this entire thread deflecting to NBC.
Once again, public statements can be made on any platform and are easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection. NBC was just the conveyer of this information, so why focus on the conveyer rather than the information? Because you're clearly not interested in the information.
The fact that you decided to fixate on NBC and ignore the point of this thread offers a pretty revealing look at how Trump supporters are able to grasp onto any straw they see in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of dealing with the very simple reality the article is pointing out.
And you're allegedly not even a Trump supporter, so I can only imagine how much worse it gets.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The most irrefutable example is the obstruction charges in the documents case. Why leave that out?
Beyond that, I would really like to understand more about how the law works with regards to Trump's mindset. Claiming Trump believed the lies he was telling has to have it's limits, at some point when the truth is beyond obvious it really shouldn't matter.
I think that's a little different from the insanity defense, as I understand that it means he's not able to make his own decisions.
Regardless,I don't see how any of those defenses could legitimately be used in a courtroom by a man who is running for public office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
A mind like a steel trap. It distorts things.
But we're the ones with derangement syndrome...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't know that. They specifically said the 4 people they talked to expressed support, as if that was the criteria. But then again, they purposely hid their methodology of the poll for obvious reasons.
It wasn't a poll. Why is this so difficult?
They didn't say they talked to the 4. They said 4 have publicly expressed support and went on to explain why they know that. At least one of them was because he tweeted it.
Public support is something you can Google yourself. There's no methology to disclose there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This has nothing to do with NBC. What they are reporting, accurately, is that only 4 members of Trump's cabinet have publicly expressed support for Trump.
Publicly doesn't mean "on NBC". Publicly means any public platform including Fox news, talk radio, social media, etc.
If all you're going to do is respond by talking about how NBC is a hate speech against republicans platform then you've already answered the question at least in your case; you reconcile this fact by pretending it isn't real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The methodology of the article implies by stating "most people did not respond" that the people that chose to not respond to NBC were put in the category of "not publicly supporting Trump"
Correct, because they have not commented in any public capacity that they are supporting Donald Trump. That has nothing to do with NBC.
You don't find that a bit odd? Only 4 out of his entire cabinet? He has more cabinet members that have publicly stated they do not support him than the ones that have said they do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
partner of Hunter’s is testifying
So... How did that go BTW?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If NBC is a platform for hate speech against Republicans, these people contacted (probably cold contacted) will likely exercise their freedom to not associate with NBC.
As the quote pointed out: "A total of four have said publicly they support his run for re-election."
Why only 4?
Created:
Just thought I'd leave this here...
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), the only Black Republican representing Florida in Congress, has pushed back against the curriculum, tweeting that “the attempt to feature the personal benefits of slavery is wrong & needs to be adjusted.”
On Sunday, Will Hurd, a former Republican congressman from Texas who is also running for the Republican presidential nomination, said that “slavery is not a jobs program.”
Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy told CNN’s “State of the Union” that while he hasn’t read the curriculum in detail, “obviously, we should be teaching kids about the awful legacy of slavery.”
And Nikki Haley, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is also running for president, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that, in the 21st century, “we can all agree that there … were no positives that came out of slavery.”
On Friday, presidential candidate Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.), the only Black Republican in the U.S. Senate, also rebuked DeSantis while speaking to reporters on the campaign trail in Iowa.
“As a country founded upon freedom, the greatest deprivation of freedom was slavery,” Scott said. “There is no silver lining … in slavery. … What slavery was really about [was] separating families, about mutilating humans and even raping their wives. It was just devastating. So, I would hope that every person in our country — and certainly running for president — would appreciate that.”
Created:
Posted in:
Interesting article from NBC News this week pointing out just how little support Donald Trump has from his own cabinet:
"NBC News reached out to 44 of the dozens of people who served in Trump's Cabinet over his term in office. Most declined to comment or ignored the requests. A total of four have said publicly they support his run for re-election."
I have a question for any Trump supporter out there or especially anyone who loves to accuse us lefties of TDS; what is your explanation for this? Is it fake news? Did Trump hire a bunch of liberals to lead his administration? How do you explain why the people closest to Trump whom he hand picked don't even support him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
this is an indictment on an unfair and broken system of rules for thee but not for me.
Can you provide a single example of this within this case?
Discretionary law enforcement should be safe, legal, and rare. Not the expected outcome.
There is nothing about an expected outcome which negates your stated vision of proper law enforcement, in fact it falls perfectly in line with it.
Our system of justice is based on applying logic to the evidence. If we look at the evidence here, we should all be able to arrive at the same conclusion as to what should happen. For example, when the defendant is caught red handed with the documents he and his legal team spent months telling the DOJ they didn't have and moving from one location to another to avoid detection, the outcome of that should be predictable.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Taxation is not theft. They're categorically different things.It’s legalized theft.
No, it's not
No, RTL is specifically about abortion. The only thing it stands against is BA.FA is an entirely sperate issue.It’s not.
Yes, it is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are right. The guy forgot he committed a crime and then remedied it on his own immediately. He did not wait decades for security enforcement to beef up.
Do you believe the DOJ's decision to charge Trump but not Biden (or Pence) is at best unfair and at worst prosecutorial abuse? Yes or No?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Still exhibiting intellectual cowardice and gross denialism.
Intellectual cowardice and denialism is exhibited by the unwillingness to engage in rational dialog, like for example, responding to a seven paragraph dissertation on why your position is wrong with a one sentence reply calling the author of that dissertation a an intellectual coward and then moving on as if no points were ever made.
Look in the mirror.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It is a fact that masturbation brings shame and dishonor
It's not, this is nothing more than an opinion which you choose to hold onto.
Shame is inherently subjective and based entirely on one's value system. I can't tell you what your values should be, but I can tell you that you are valuing an idea that is antithetical from your own biological programming, which is self harming. That's a choice.
First you say that masturbation is beyond my control, then you say that I would be able to control it
No, I said your biological programming is beyond your control, which is why it does not make any sense to feel shame based on giving into it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Did Biden turn them in voluntarily, or did the FBI have to obtain a court approved search warrant to get them back?Doesn't matter since it was merely a defensive move to avoid being caught in double standards
Let's start by reiterating that the central claim here is that Donald Trump and Joe Biden are being treated unequally by the DOJ.
So with that said, Yes, it absolutely matters.
The law doesn't go after people nearly as hard for making a mistake, and for good reason. This is like arguing that the guy who stuffs a bunch of items down his pants, gets to the door and sets of the alarm, then takes off when security tries to stop him should be treated the same as the guy who gets to his car, realizes he had an item in his cart that was not paid for, then goes back inside to give it back.
They're not the same.
Did Biden lie the FBI telling them he didn't have the documents knowing full well he did?Biden lies about quite a few things.
That's a no.
If he ever talked to the FBI in an adversarial sense I'm sure he would lie
Your hypothetical predictions are not relevant.
Did Biden order the documents he was retaining to be moved from one location to another to avoid the FBI finding them?He would hardly need to
Again, that's a no
And if you think the answer to any of these questions is yes, does anyone, anywhere, have any evidence of this?The answer is: I don't care.
Well I hate to break it to you but the DOJ does. It's kind of the defining trait of a just system, which judging by your response you really don't seem to care about, which is kind of an odd thing considering that your entire point here seems to be railing against the DOJ for being unjust.
Oh, so your theory is that these so called differences are why one was charged but not the other.
They're not "so called" differences, they're the literal charges against Trump which Biden has not committed.
Well, in your theory; what is the explanation for why nobody asked for Biden's documents
Could be a number of reasons. For one Biden was found to have about a dozen or so, Trump had over a hundred. Trump also had top secret nuclear documents, Biden's were no where near that serious.
Is there a mountain of circumstantial evidence that Biden is the type who would sell classified material to the highest bidder?
No, and irrelevant. While many speculate, the DOJ is not charging Trump with attempting to sell US secrets.
...until shortly after they started pretending it was a crime to keep documents after leaving office?
Right, back to this.
So despite me listing numerous obvious differences between the two scenarios, and you having no response to them except hypothetical examples where you believe Biden would have done the same thing, you still maintain that Trump's charges are the product of weaponized double standards by the DOJ and not because the actions of these two men were polar opposites in almost every way that matters.
But like you suggested, who cares about evidence right?
If you're going to hand waive away every single difference them of course what remains will be the same. There's nothing impressive nor virtuous about closing your eyes and ignoring reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I actually feel guilty after masturbating. I blame myself that I am addicted to these primitive actions.
It's not primitive, it's biological programming. The need to masturbate is really no different than the need to pee. And if you are male, your body is continually creating semen so if you don't get it out of you, your body will do so on its own (that's why we have wet dreams).
There is simply no honour in masturbation.
This is entirely made up, whether by you or someone who fed this to you. Either way you are in complete control of this notion and any negative effects it has on your psyche.
In a survey done some years ago 98% of all people said they masterbate. The other 2% lied about it. There is nothing wrong with it unless you convince yourself otherwise.
I probably wasted thousands of hours masturbating. If I used that time to read Karl Marx, maybe I would be better at defending Marxism in debates.
If you're masturbating that frequently it might suggest you have a much higher sex drive than most. This is beyond your control so feeling bad about it is misguided. Regardless, spending that time elsewhere would only result in your sexual thoughts consuming you more so than of you let it out.
I basically have no interest in being around people.
That has little of anything to do with masterbation. You sound like you might benefit from therapy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
it just happened that he "discovered them" (in his garage and all over the place) a few months after the DJT witchhunt. What a coincidence.
Let's assume it was not a coincidence.
Did Biden turn them in voluntarily, or did the FBI have to obtain a court approved search warrant to get them back?
Did Biden lie the FBI telling them he didn't have the documents knowing full well he did?
Did Biden order his attornies to falsely claim the area was searched and cleared of any further documents?
Did Biden order the documents he was retaining to be moved from one location to another to avoid the FBI finding them?
Did Biden attempt to delete the video footage showing where the documents were after learning that that very footage was being federally subpoenad?
Did Biden sit around showing and explaining those documents to people who clearly did not have the clearance while admitting her knew they weren't supposed to see them?
And if you think the answer to any of these questions is yes, does anyone, anywhere, have any evidence of this?
It's pretty hard not to see the difference here and figure out why those differences would result in one getting charged and not the other.
But word around here seems to be that I'm the one being intellectually dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I hear they control the courts, the media, the education system, climate science and HollywoodOh....and they can rig elections
I think there are two things going on here;
First is that we are seeing the flailing out of desperation of a party that is on the precepis of going extinct. From policy to demographics, everything that feuls the replican party is headed in the wrong direction. Generally, there are one of two ways of dealing with this; you can either adapt to a changing political environment, or you can fight for dear life to preserve things the way they are.
Republicans have chosen the latter.
In 2012 after losing to Obama for the second time the replican party did a self assessment of what went wrong. They determined that the key to their political survival for the future was to focus on appealing to minorities, particularly with regards to a more lenient immigration policy.
Then they elected Trump, the antithesis of everything the report said they needed to do.
When you decide to go down this road you are no longer interested in appealing to the nation with convincing argument, instead they have gone down the path of war. So everything becomes a battle of one side vs the other as opposed to what is right. So for example, instead of winning elections by getting the most votes, they attempt to win by stealing it. But in a system that hinges on legitimacy, this is a tough battle so it's no wonder they keep losing.
Second, being that the republican party has decided convincing argument is no longer it's means of appeal, the base it has maintained is one that is predominately not interested in facts or nuance. So the narrative they are able to sell to their base for political expediency becomes more and more disconnected from reality. This results in a major clash everytime an issue becomes politicized.
Take the classified documents examples. Both Biden and Trump were found to have taken classified documents, but Biden turned his in voluntarily as soon as he discovered them. Trump hid them from the FBI and lied about it. To the crowd uninterested in nuance, all they care to know is that they both had classified documents, but that's not why Trump was indicted. So having tossed the key differences in the trash, all that's left is to conclude they should both be treated the same - a conclusion that is the direct result of willfull ignorance, which is what the party has become reliant on.
So when the republicans are able to do this over and over again, it is easy to see why their base thinks democrats control everything. In some ways they might be right, but that's not because of some political war type thing. It's because the republican party has made a decision to no longer appeal to those who are educated enough to see through their BS, like, say, judges, journalists, professors, scientists, etc. In other words, pretty much anyone qualified to make important decisions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Like everyone has said…two tiers of justice when it comes to democrats (Bidens, Clintons, Obamas, et al) and everyone else.
Prison sentences are not black and white, that's why we have judges. They have to take a multitude of things into account such as what compelled the defendant to commit the crime, how far they went to commit the crime, whether they were aware they were doing anything illegal, are they taking accountability for their actions, do they have a prior record, etc.
These questions matter, because it's not just about what rule was broken, it's about the level of malice involved and whether the individual who broke them is a threat to do so again.
Yet despite all of this, you send me about a dozen or so links comparing the Hunter Biden case to other cases, yet these other examples seem to only go skin deep. The argument appears to be "person X evaded taxes and went to prison, therefore Hunter who evaded taxes should also go to prison"
As an example, here is an article from politifact examining the difference between the Hunter Biden case vs Wesley Snipes (your first link):
Based on how little effort you appear to have made critically examining the articles you cited, I see no reason to look at any of the others. If you want, instead of spamming a bunch of links provide just one that you are willing to stand by as a solid example.
That’s why anyone and everyone cares.
Even if I granted your first contention, this still would not explain why anyone should care. The son of a sitting president getting a more lenient sentence than he might have gotten otherwise would be wrong, but is hardly worth congressional hearings and the daily devotion to right wing media we are seeing. There have always been two tiers of justice, one for the poor and another for the powerful and well connected. This is nothing new or newsworthy, and no one on the political right ever cared about that before so it's quite a difficult gripe to take seriously.
The mere fact that I (or anyone else for that matter) has to point out the fucking obvious to you just proved you’re an ignorant denialist of the fact based truths in which you don’t know, choose not to know, and purposely deny when thrown in your narcissistic face.
But I'm the one who's pompous and arrogant. Ok bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
And like in usual pompous arrogant narcissistic fashion, you threw up the 🤚 in ignorant denial.
Translation: You provided rebuttals where you logically explained why my assertions are invalid.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
How ironic after Trump was elected in 2016 claiming that Hillary should be in jail for deleting emails on her server.
Are you really suggesting Trump and his supporters are not being intellectually honest?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why the double thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The news is about the pea deals, not the charges. Nobody cared if Cohen or Manafort went to jail.
Plea deals are a normal everyday thing that happens in criminal proceedings. This does not address why anyone should care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
lol
Thank you for proving my point once again. Every conversation with you ends just like this one. If my positions were so asinine you should be able to explain why, instead this is apparently all you got.
Good day.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Realistically, what outcome would you like to see from an argument?
A deeper understanding of the issue is always the goal. If my argument is wrong or if there are other ways I should look at the issue, show me. If it's not wrong or if I am seeing it as clearly as I need to, that will become more apparent through the discussion as well as subsequent discussions with other people.
I engage in every discussion as if the person at the other end shares that view. If they don't, then in my opinion, they're in the wrong place.
I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization that I'm "going for the win", but that doesn't mean that's the point. That's just the means by which the goal is achieved. It's like training for a marathon. While the marathon may be the focal point and motivator, the real reason one might be doing it is because they want to get in shape and lose weight.
In my opinion, the best way to understand an issue is to debate it. If you or others take that as a sign that I'm not intellectually curious or am unwilling to change my mind then there's little I can or care to do about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You said the same BULLSHIT regarding the government conspiring with social media to suppress the 1A rights of citizens to speak their minds on those platforms.
It wasn't a conspiracy. In the aftermath of all the misinformation these social media companies allowed their platforms to spread, they reasonably took steps to mitigate the issue in the future. That included partnering with various figures and entities giving them the opportunity to directly flag content for expedited review. It wasn't just the government, it also included political campaigns.
That was Twitter's decision, they made the right one even if it didn't always result false claims being removed and true claims being allowed. Perfection is not a realistic bar.
In the judges opinion this constituted a 1A violation, but that's highly questionable and no where in his opinion did he even consider Twitter's input - the very entity (which is not government) who decided to remove the posts in question.
Congress has been holding hearing after hearing,
Which has been one embarrassment after another
whistleblowers are coming forward
With nothing substantive and credible to offer. The big whistleblower that was supposed to knock our socks off turned out to be a spy under federal indictment who no one had heard from in three years because he was busy evading US authorities.
The last two "whistleblowers" had no direct knowledge of any of the key decisions that were made, and contradict the account given by the guy running the investigations who BTW, was appointed by Trump.
the laptop contents are know
They're not admissible. The contents have been edited and copied dozens of times over, there is no longer a valid chain of custody and we know for a fact that at least some of its contents were made up. I mean, do you not find it curious that with all the copies or there we're still learning new things about what is on it?
solid FBI confidential sources have spoken
And we know they exist how - because the same people who made up the last story told us so?
partner of Hunter’s is testifying
Can't wait to hear that one
there are bank record trails leading straight to China and Ukraine payments to the Biden family members identified in those documented sources
No one has seen these documents.
so on and so forth
Yes, I'm sore there is plenty of other made up non-credible evidence out there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Conspiracy theories are not evidence.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Taxation is (sometimes) justified theft because the right to fiscal autonomy is not absolute.
Taxation is not theft. They're categorically different things.
The issue is when BA comes into conflict with other rights (Right to life (RTL) and Fiscal Autonomy (FA)).
As I've been pointing out
With social programs that cost money, it’s RTL vs FA.
No, RTL is specifically about abortion. The only thing it stands against is BA.
FA is an entirely sperate issue.
YOU’VE changed!
Nope, still hold all of the same basic positions I held before
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just like Manafort and Cohen, Hunter is a material witness.
Witness to what?
And if it's his status as a witness that makes him newsworthy, why focus so hard on his federal charges that would seem to have nothing to do with what he allegedly witnessed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Because Daddy is directly tied to his son’s foreign business affairs and the bribery and the scandals and so on and so forth.
Or so we're told. Now if only they could find credible evidence of this...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what? Why should anyone care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God exists outside the laws of science that we exist in. Heck, he created them.That means that in the universe God created for us, a rule is that something cannot come from nothing.
You're begging the question but let's set that aside.
You assert that the laws of science apply to the universe, which I think we all accept. But you're using this argument to reach beyond the universe, that does not apply.
Big bang cosmology begins with a single point where everything in known existence densely resided. This is called the singularity. In science, a singularity is a point where the laws of not just of physics but also math and logic break down. What big bang cosmology asserts is that it was during the big bang explosion where the laws of the universe themselves came into existence. So in other words, much like your assertion of God, the singularity is not subject to the laws of the universe.
Therefore there is not one single problem you have raised for which God answers and cannot be applied to the singularity. You say God always existed, but you disregard that possibility towards the singularity. That's special pleading.
Here, let's take a step back from big bang cosmology and look at it from a much simpler perspective; why is there something rather than nothing?
You assert God. Ok, so is God a something or nothing?
If God is nothing, then he cannot logically be asserted as the cause for everything as that is self contradictory.
So God must be a something. Your answer to the question is this that the reason there is a something is because of something. But something cannot cause something's own existence, so "something" cannot be the answer to this question.
There is no third option here, as nothing is simply the negation of something.
So in other words, just like the singularity, there is no logically valid answer to this question. The proper response is therefore "I don't know".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hunter Biden is a private citizen who has never served in government and has no ambitions to do so. Why is the political right so obsessed with him?
It's almost as if they do so because they need to distract from the fact that they have absolutely no policy platform to make people's lives better and because their standard bearer is facing over a hundred felony counts with more on the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you find the statement "race is framework for explaining a given set of facts" to be a coherent statement? Yes or no?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
How is “THATS THE FUCKING POINT!” an insult?
I didn't say it was, that falls into the category of shouting and profanity. An example of an insult would be this:
No, HISTORICAL FACT!!!Ignorant DENIALIST!!!
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Frankly, I would like to see the last time you said “That’s a fair point”, “I stand corrected”, “I never looked at it that way before” and responses of that nature…
I have acknowledged errors when I found legitimate points against my stated position. It's rare though, so I'm not about to dig through my posts looking for them, and I really couldn't care less about proving myself in that regard to anyone.
What I take issue with is the presumption that because I hardly if ever tell someone they were right and I am wrong, that this somehow proves I'm not being intellectually honest or arguing in good faith. Intellectual honesty is reasonably judged by consistency, not 'argument loses'.
The reason I hardly if ever say I'm wrong is because I think about the things I say before I say them. If I'm willing to admit my positions are wrong after posting them then of course I would be willing to do so before, so if I take the time to think about it first I would avoid that situation to begin with by adjusting my argument before hitting "create post".
The other issue is that it seems most users think the bar for whether someone is worthy of their effort is whether they are likely to change their mind. Most people won't, and I couldn't care less if I change your mind. I'm not here for your benefit, I'm here to test my own positions (and because I'm bored). If there's something wrong with my argument, I figure someone here should be willing to show me. So here it is. Focus on what I have to say or focus on me. Your choice.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
and I walked you through the difference between belief and reality. If he had defined wokeness as "the fight against (definitely real) systematic injustice" what you say would follow.
It doesn't really make a difference. Whether he believes systemic injustices are real is getting into the reasons why he would be against addressing them, but either way the fact is that he has still made it his mission to fight back against them.
And when it comes to the conversation of whether he believes they are real or not, that conversation is hardly useful for anything. You know who else purports to not believe there are systemic injustices in America? The KKK, white supremacists, etc. We can never know for certain what one believes, all we can infer is from one's actions.
If it was taught as a "but" or a "on the positive" side I agree. That is merely an assumption on your part however.For instance if the story about the twin towers was supplemented with "but we built a new tower cause you can't keep us down" that would not be offensive.
Bit that's not what the lesson plan outlines. Yes someone could add that spin to it, but they would be doing that in their own, not as part of what was outlined.
Then again when I say taxes are theft they tell me no one can build a road without stealing the money first. Based on that logic the only way to learn skills is to be kidnapped and enslaved.
That logic doesn't follow. Roads cannot be built without money because people don't willingly work for free, nor do they contribute to the government voluntarily. People do however choose to learn new skills all the time.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Isn't even THIS bolded part pretty questionable? Slaves were freed in the late 1860's. How easy was it in, say 1875, for a black person to own a business in let's say South Carolina? I would bet that "benefits" flowed largely to the white business owners these skilled laborers ended up having to work for, far more than it benefitted the laborer. Especially if that skilled labor was a woman, a seamstress, for example.
I would consider it an uncontestable fact that some slaves benefited in some way from the skills they learned during their time as slaves. But you are right to point out (as I did in detail earlier in this thread) that it's a pretty absurd thing to point to when considering that the negatives of slavery for African Americans far outweigh any positives we can point to, so it's quite a bit dubious to even call them benefits at all.
Still, there are always exceptions so there are probably plenty of anecdotal examples of John Doe the slave whom we can say slavery worked out well for in the end, so I find arguing against the fact to be counter productive. It's like saying "no one is saying X" only to be shown a clip of one person who said it one time. The larger picture gets lost.
That's why I step back and point to the bigger picture and problem here, which is not about whether you can find anecdotal examples of your narrative but whether those examples are worthy of being included in the lesson and what it tells us about the people who think it should be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They are quite different. Do you want the Chatgpt explanation as if you are explaining it to an 8 year old? It is a bit funny!I do find it strange you are unwilling to call your beliefs on race a "theory"
I find it difficult to tell whether you are really being serious or just trolling. In my perpetual optimistism I’ll assume the former and take your comments seriously.
Since you seem to be struggling with English let me assist; whether we're talking about the scientific or the colloquial usage of the term theory, either way it is a framework for which a given set of facts are explained within.
In science it is not called a theory until that framework is accepted as fact, whereas in the colloquial sense it used far before that point more in line with the term "hypothesis".
So when you assert that race is a theory, you're asserting that race is a framework for which a given set of facts are explained.
This is incoherent as race is categorically different from a framework of any kind. Race is a categorization of people based on observable physical characteristics passed down through their lineage. That's an entirely different thing, you might as well be asking me whether the color green is small or large.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I am continually in amazement at your uncanny ability to naysay absolutely everything put to you while also giving it the illusion of intellectual rigor and honesty. Alas, this further exemplifies why I don’t believe in your purported willingness to be enlightened by me or anyone here, really…
And I am always amazed at how you continually point to my ability to give ‘illusion to illegal rigor’ instead of providing a logical refutation of the points I am (fallaciously in your view) making.
This is a debate site, if you aren’t willing to go back and forth with someone who makes their points intellectually why bother? Would you prefer I take the TWS approach and just start shouting insults at you in all caps?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
NO IT IS NOT!!! Not even close.
Wow, you really shut me down with your ferocious application of logic.
I always find it amusing interacting with you and watching how our conversations start off reasonable and then seeing you devolve into a shouting insulting all caps keyboard warrior after a few posts you can’t figure out how to handle.
And that is THE FUCKING POINT THE - WAIT FOR IT - BLACK SCHOLARS TRIED TO POINT OUT!!!!Which was ALREADY pointed out…yet you MADE ASININE EXCUSES to divert from that glaring fact to which you admitted to.
Yes, that was the point the scholars and school board were pointing out, which is exactly what the left is taking issue with. I just walked you through this in detail, how do you still not understand it? Did you read anything I wrote? Are you even trying to understand it?
Moreover, just think about the absurdity of what you’re fighting so hard to point to; Slavery in America occurred for about 400 years,Strawman fallacy. I’ve made NO such argument. Obviously. Since historically the TRUE fact is slavery was NOT a 400 year venture.
That answers my previous question, no you are not trying to understand what I’m saying. If you were you would read the entire thing and consider its context.
I was not strawmanning you by suggesting you are trying to argue slavery lasted 400 years. I began by pointing out that slavery lasted for centuries in order to put the fact you are pointing to in its proper context.
That fact (that some slaves benefited from the skills they acquired from slavery after being freed), when considering the fact that slavery lasted for centuries is so incredibly benign and so deeply pales in comparison to the horror of what slavery was that it becomes offensive to devote any time to it just as it would be offensive to devote any time teaching our kids about the positive trade offs to downtown NYC resulting from 9/11.
Do you understand the point that I’m making? Do you understand that this is not a dispute over any particular fact but about prioritization of which facts are focused on as I explained in my last post?
Created:
-->
@cristo71
we don’t need some black professor to explain to us what it says or what the point is, it’s right there in plain English.So, even when another poster directs you to the missing context, you refuse to give it any daylight…
There isn’t any missing context, that was the whole point I was making.
Even within the clip, the professor “explained” the instruction and everything he said about it is exactly what the left is criticizing.
On a tangential note, I would advise that you say “we [or just “I” really, as you should speak for yourself] don’t need some professor who happens to be black [or just leave race out altogether] to explain to us what it says or what the point is…”The way you wrote it, it just looks bad (as in bigoted).
Pointing to the fact that he is black was in direct response to post 19 (which is where my quote came from), which explicitly relied on his race for credibility.
There is nothing bigoted about eluding to the fact that one’s race is irrelevant.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So now a state lead by a man who has made it his mission to fight back against addressing systemic injustices in AmericaHe's fighting back against fraudulent claims of entitlement and guilt which characterize "woke", which is an act in furtherance of justice.
Not according to him. I already walked you through this.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So now a state lead by a man who has made it his mission to fight back against addressing systemic injustices in AmericaHe's fighting back against fraudulent claims of entitlement and guilt which characterize "woke", which is an act in furtherance of justice.
Not according to him. I already walked you through this.
Created: