Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So clearly, you don't have any actual objections to my arguments and instead are just playing stupid, probably to get a rise out of me.
I've explained numerous times why it's not circular, and "because it's not circular" was never the explanation. If you're not trolling then you're entirely too stupid to talk too. Either way, good day.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
If Trump is truly guilty, then hit him with the book, BUT it seems that the liberals here still think that their political heroes are little angels.
No one is claiming they're angels, that's just a concoction of the political right in an attempt to level the playing field not by showing the virtue of their positions, but by inventing a Boogeyman on the opposing side to compare themselves to.
Here's a simple question, do you believe someone who walks out of a store with an unpaid item somewhere in their cart, realizes it's there and then walks back into the store to return it, is the same as the guy who purposefully stuffs the item down his pants and then when approached by security outside, peels off? I mean, both guys did walk out of the store with an unpaid item right?
Of course these two aren't the same, because one intended to steal the item and one did not. This is why when it comes to criminal conduct, the most important element of demonstrating anyone's guilt is intent. In many cases, intent is literally the difference between whether the conduct is legal or illegal.
So without getting into all the legalize of Trump's case vs [insert Democratic politician here], can you seriously, with a straight face, claim that there is just as much evidence of their intent to commit a crime as there is with Trump? If you think so, please provide your comparative analysis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And everything I’ve said to this point has been responsive to your so called “explanation” yet here we are.
And your responses have been nothing more than critiques of something I'm not arguing. Repeating those critiques only demonstrates that you aren't paying attention.
You continually claim I'm engaging in circular reasoning while ignoring that I have already addressed why that's not the case.
So, once again, do you have any real objection to anything I've argued aside from semantics?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
BTW, I'm curious as to what your take is on Bill Barr, the latest left wing lib tard saying pretty much all of the same things I would about this indictment...
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
And yet a federal judge disagrees with you as she did a conservative's legal group trying to get recordings from Clinton."The Court has seriously [sic] doubts about whether the former President’s retention of the audiotapes as personal is a matter that is subject to judicial review. But the Court need not decide this question because whether judicial review is available or not, the relief that plaintiff seeks – that the Archivist assume 'custody and control' of the audiotapes – is not available under the PRA," Jackson wrote in her decision (posted here)."
You clearly didn't read her decision.
The reason why it wasn't available under the PRA is because the PRA doesn't require NARA to assume custody of presidential records, therefore she had no judicial jurisdiction to order NARA to do so.
This is yet either typical example of right wingers searching for anything under the sun they can to equivocate completely different things in their never ending whataboutisms.
He was the POTUS and had broad authority where those records were concerned.
Having broad authority under a law does not mean one can rewrite the law entirely or simply deem it irrelevant. The PRA defines what qualifies as presidential records, there is no universe where the documents Trump took, especially classified documents containing the US's nuclear secrets fall under "personal documents". That's obscenely offensively stupid.
There was no "willful" retention, he complied with all parameters of security advised to do so.
We have the photos and the text messages. Trump literally ordered boxes of documents moved from one room to another to stop federal investigation from finding them.
Read the indictment.
Never said he gave them back, I said they were back in the government's possession, ergo no violation of the PRA.
This is like claiming a shop lifter cannot be charged because the police tackled the guy outside the store and took the merchandise back.
There is no way you are being serious. This is the level of absurdity one must lower themselves to in order to defend Donald Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And how do you go about explaining what a standard for morality is?
I've explained it about 3 times already. What part of it are you not understanding?
The mere fact that I asked you this before proves it’s circularity.
No, it proves you either aren't paying attention or have serious reading comprehension issues.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
The fact that Trump has been constantly bombarded with impeachments, trials, investigations, etc, really shows a bias to the outside contender.
This is like claiming that your school is terrible and the evidence of that is that your report card shows all F's.
Trump has been impeached and investigated over and over again because he's easily the most brazenly corrupt individual we've ever seen in US politics. This should have been obvious from the very beginning by his very public infatuation with his mentor Roy Cohn. If not his fake university, fake charity, and droves of unpaid contractors should have given people the hint. Yet here we are, despite all of the evidence against him, right wing cultists still blame everyone else for the crime of investigating him.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
- Your conspiracy theory is not a fact or an argument
- No evidence the Dems want one party rule
- No evidence the Dems weaponized the government. Let me guess, Durham report?
- It doesn't need to be a criminal statue. One of his many violations is withholding documents that don't belong to him. That's theft. The Presidential Records Act dictates who owns the documents in question.
- What Woodrow Wilson did or did not do is irrelevant
- Your conspiracy theories are not an argument
- Your opinion of what happened is not an argument
- Complete BS, in addition to the willful retention of classified documents he is also being charged with obstruction and lying to federal investigators
- Biden's statements to the FBI are irrelevant to the charges against Trump
- Biden signed off on the fact that the documents do in fact belong to the American people - because they do. Reality is not an argument against the indictment.
- Whataboutism is not an argument against the indictment
- The indictment does not charge Trump with selling these documents and Trump did not give them back, they were seized during the search warrant
- The DOJ did not interrogate Trump's attorneys, they testified. You should know the difference. Attorney/Client privilege does not apply when it is used to commit a crime
- Why are you even asking this question? 95% of the residents of DC voted against Trump, so if they were just out to get him they would have tried him there. My guess is they are trying him in Florida because that's where he committed his crimes, which would make sense.
- Reed's record with SCOTUS is not an argument against the indictment
- Your opinion is not an argument against the indictment
- Whataboutism is not an argument against the indictment
This is a war on Trump, the Republican party and the Republic itself.
No, this is what holding a criminal to account looks like. It's unbelievably sad and pathetic that even something so simple as this indictment, complete with Trump insiders as witnesses, pictures, and recordings of Trump literally committing his crimes, the cult still remains unwaivered.
Indicting a former president and presidential candidate is definitely a problem, but the issue here is not the DOJ, the problem here is that we elected a man who so brazenly thinks he is above the law and would burn the country down before ever admitting to anything he did. Even Nixon had enough respect for democracy and the rule of law to resign. This is on you and every moron who put our nation's secrets in this man's hands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So your whole issue here is sematics. Got it.
"Moral" in "moral standard" is not a descriptive, it's not saying the standard was evaluated as being moral. The phrase moral standard means 'standard for morality'.
Just because a word is used twice doesn't mean the reasoning is circular. You need to pay attention to what people are actually arguing.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't. That's for themselves, their parents and their doctors to consider as they diagnose each case individually.No, no. You don't get away from the consequences of your argument that easily.You've argued at length that transgender identities should be 'regarded'.Are you now suggesting that these transgender teenagers, of which 70-80% will simply grow out of their transgender identities, should have, in some circumstances, their transgender identity not regarded?Do you 'regard' transgender identities, or do only regard some of them? Which is it, Double_R?
I have no idea what you're trying to ask.
You asked me how I deal with the fact that "most teens outgrow their transgenderism", and like I said, I don't because I'm not the one at the center of their dysphoria making key decisions. This isn't something on my plate and it's not on yours either, which is what makes your obsession with this topic that much more nefarious.
You seem to be confusing regarding ones identity with approving of surgery, which is an absurd thing to confuse. If I acknowledge a teenager as "she" at their request and he outgrows it... Then next time I'll acknowledge him as a he. This is really simple, no harm had been done.
If that teen desires to undergoe surgery, then again, that's an issue for him and his parents to decide on and consult with medical professionals on. If 4 out of 5 outgrow their transgenderism, then the task here is to determine whether he is the 4 or the 1 and whether this is necessary at this time. I have nothing to do with that and I couldn't care less about being a part of that conversation. It's not my life. Why do you believe it is yours?
And BTW, regard does not mean appease.
No, I made the point that the transparent logical absurdities you engaged in to reach that conclusion and subsequent false interpretation of my comments is far more easily explained by bigotry than a a good faith non bigotry inspired error in reason.You're just lying. People can see the full context here: The transgenderism debate (debateart.com)
This is so stupid.
What part of this exchange in your mind demonstrates that I'm lying?
No. I argued that there is a significant proportion of transgender teenagers (70-80%) who will grow out of their transgenderism. Nowhere in that argument does it refer to the ease.
You have repeatedly made the claim that transgender teenagers shouldn't be able to have reassignment surgery because they are mentally ill and therefore cannot decide what's best for themselves. This argument completely ignores the fact that teenagers are not making these decisions on their own.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do you have an actual issue with my explanation for what morality is and how it works? You've ignored every substantive point I've made here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I take issue with this part of this, how can you give an example of me having a moral standard of x when according to you I don’t even know what a moral standard is?
I presented an if/then statement. That's not an assumption of your moral standard, is a hypothetical example to illustrate what moral standard is and how it works.
You can still follow a moral standard even if you don't know what it is, just as one can easily commit a logical fallacy without knowing it.
You first need to address what a moral standard is before you can give examples surrounding it, and you’ve failed to do so
Closing your eyes and plugging your ears does not mean the world around you doesn't exist.
I've explained what moral standard is twice now, and it's really simple. Pretending I didn't doesn't validate your nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That's not what moral standard is. This is really simple stuff. Let's try another way;
If your moral standard is X, then anything that violates X is wrong.
X is your starting point, you cannot therefore assess the morality of X. So claiming "X is good" is a tautology.
There will always be some disagreement on X, therefore all morality is necessarily subjective.
Explain which part of this you take issue with.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
Has it occurred to you that maybe the left and the media is pushing so hard on Donald Trump is because he is upsetting the apple cart?
Yes, we all know this. Before Trump things like basic human decency, respect for our Democratic institutions, and adherence to reality itself were all things we just assumed we were all on the same page about. He has clearly upset the establishment cart.
We were just nailed with the biggest hoax of our lifetimes. COVID. The virus was real, but the vaccines were bunk, the masks were bunk, the social distancing was bunk, so on
Let's just pretend for a second that you are correct and it was all bunk. Please explain how this qualifies as a hoax. Who orchestrated it and how did they get the entire world to blindly follow it?
Then just last night, another indictment which a portion is the classified documents thing, which EVERY president living now has done, including one recent vice president turned president, and no charges brought to them.
Have you even read the indictment?
Created:
Mark Levin, a gentleman and a scholar, destroys your argument(s) here in its entirety.
He didn't present one single argument in his entire rant. The closest he came was by calling it a "documents case" completely lying about the fact that the bulk of these charges are for obstructing the investigation and overtly lying to federal investigators. This was pretty much 9 minutes of whataboutism.
This, btw is why I don't watch videos by people who are too intellectually lazy to write their own arguments. Is there one snippet of this rant that you think was insightful here? Don't know. I could sit here tearing it apart piece by piece and all you do is go "well that's not the part I was highlighting".
So feel free to enlighten us with your own words; what about this silly rant do you think destroys anyone's argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because you're accusing me of doing that to which I'm not.
Circular reasoning is when the individual points supporting a proposition all rely on each other to be affirmed. I'm explaining why morality begins with it's foundational principals, which can be disagreed with. That's why there is no such thing as objective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It's funny because that person might actually prefer ze/zir, they/them, he/him or any other host of non-binary or binary pronouns, so you could actually be wrong
If you assume a person's pronouns and you turn out to be wrong guess what you can do?
Adjust.
No one is arguing that you have to be 100% accurate, we're talking about having regard for others. Why is this so complicated for you?
What's worse is that you've claimed to know what the "trans community" wants, and thus are assuming gender (potentially incorrectly) for large swathes of people.
What the trans community wants is for their preferred pronouns to be respected, which again, does not require 100% accuracy. All you have to do is try. It's not that hard.
You're arguing (and have argued) that "respect" has the mandatory component of appeasing people's wishes. Again, your words: "...Just ignore their wishes, that's literally all you got. That's by definition, the opposite of respect."
There is absolutely nothing about my words here that place the appeasement of another's wishes as mandatory to respect. Let me educate you on basic English. Again.
According to your own definition, respect can come in 3 different forms, and by the use of the word "or", they are not all required at once to qualify.
Disrespect is the opposite of respect, therefore the opposite of any of these 3 different forms definitionally qualifies as the opposite of respect.
Disregarding someone's wishes, therefore, by definition, qualifies as disrespect
Disregarding someone's feelings, therefore, by definition, qualifies as disrespect
Disregarding someone's rights, therefore, by definition, qualifies as disrespect
Is it disrespectful to deny a child ice-cream that he/she wished for?
Disrespecting? No. But depending on the circumstances it could be said that you are not respecting their wishes either.
We generally don't talk about respect when it comes to children because that's not what we give them. Children are in a different category because they aren't yet deemed capable of deciding what's best for themselves. Same goes for people with some severe mental illnesses.
The thing you have failed to understand is demonstrated nicely by your own example of schizophrenia. You acknowledge it as a mental illness, and yet you also acknowledge that many schizophrenics are perfectly capable of living on their own and making their own choices. That's because rightfully determining one to be incapable of making their own choices requires an individual diagnosis. We do not just categorize people into vague camps and then assert that all of them should get the same treatment all the time.
This goes back to the point I've been making for weeks or even months now. Your assertion that trans people are mentally ill even if correct is entirely useless. Show mean trans person who is suicidal and I'll agree with you that they shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Not because they are trans, but because they are suicidal.
Your logic here is literally the same logic as me digging through statistics to prove that black people are more dangerous than white people and using that to justify locking up any random black person. That's what we call rationalized bigotry.
A wife's wish to have a violent free home is reasonable. A mentally ill person thinking they're born in the wrong body is not.
You have done absolutely nothing to show that the latter is unreasonable, except to egregiously strawman what trans people are telling us.
Your argument here has been that their feelings are invalid because they are not in line with their biological reality, while utterly failing to understand that that's literally what they're telling you. This isn't an example of them being delusional as you claim, it's them telling you something that is almost literally a self affirming statement.
Do you honestly think every wish must be appeased?
Appeasing and regarding are not the same thing.
This is basic English.
On what grounds have you decided that a "negative connotation" doesn't apply here?
Because most people wouldn't absurdly combine an inherently negative term such as "disrespect" with another inherently negative term such as "terrorist".
Again, how do you deal with the fact that most teens outgrow their transgenderism?
I don't. That's for themselves, their parents and their doctors to consider as they diagnose each case individually.
Your response to me suggesting you would enable a suicidal person to kill themselves was that I was repackaging my bigotry as selfless virtue. Hence, you've implied that not enabling people to self-harm is "bigotry".
No, I made the point that the transparent logical absurdities you engaged in to reach that conclusion and subsequent false interpretation of my comments is far more easily explained by bigotry than a a good faith non bigotry inspired error in reason.
I never said or implied it was that easy to transition -- that's a total strawman.
You very clearly argued that trans teens shouldn't be able to make these decisions solely and easily which is clearly not the case and no one is advocating for that.
Out of time, will address the rest later. Maybe.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's the part where I stopped watching. I don't see what that had to do with the topic of this thread.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only thing the video is a critique of is Joe Biden's age.
I understand the desire to see someone younger nominated, that's not an argument for Biden's lack of suitability nor for anyone else's.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
His entire argument is that Biden shouldn't be president because he's 80.
What was the point of posting this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Ok, let me rephrase... What is it that you get or are seeking from the time you spend in this site?
I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious. If you aren't interested in giving an actual answer you can just say so or ignore me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden failed to repeal most of Trump's cuts.That makes Biden a DINOAlso a deplorable right wing terrorist.
Right. The hostage negotiators failed to stop the terrorists, therefore they themselves are terrorists.
Great logic GP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So if wrong is violating a moral standard then what is a moral standard? What one deems as right or wrong? That’s circular reasoning at its finest
It's not circular reasoning. A moral standard is the starting point, all moral judgements are derived from it. That's why moral standards cannot themselves be evaluated on moral grounds. For example, if God is your moral standard then "God is good" is nothing more than a taughtology. That's circular reasoning.
What I'm talking about when I talk about morality is whether the actions of one cause harm or are unfair to others. And like I said, we aren't always going to agree on those basics. If you don't believe there is something wrong with harming others or treating others unfairly, then you and I are going to clash and there likely won't be any peaceful or amicable resolution to that. This is why people often get into physical altercations and why wars are fought.
So what are you talking about when you talk about morality? How do you make moral judgements? From where are those judgements derived? Do tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you accept the point I just made then why are you here, arguing your views on a debate site?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because there’s no other logical reason to believe the activity you engaged in was even “wrong” in the first place
So... Proving the supernatural via argument from ignorance. Ok.
What does “wrong” even mean to you anyway?
It means in violation of basic moral principals that are used to form a moral standard, namely fairness and harm.
Some might disagree on the of a moral standard but the overwhelming majority of people see it mostly the same way because these are really basic elements of human nature and what is conducive to the nature of life.
When some cannot agree we end up with opposing moral systems which lead us to a situation where we cannot find amicable resolutions, that's when we tend to turn to violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
You gave us the universal principle of 'respect other people's wishes'. That applies to *everyone*, not just transgender people. You need to defend this principle in regards to *everyone*, not just transgender people, elsewise it is not a universal principle.
So in other words, I need to explain to you how basic human interaction, common sense, and English works. Cool.
There are about three different levels of carrying out this very basic, 3rd grade level principal. You can respect others wishes...
A) Because you know what they are since they have explicitly told you so
B) By looking at the evidence and applying Occam's razor
C) By assuming based on basic human nature
Choice A doesn't need further explaining
If choice A is not an option because the individual you are interacting with hasn't made their wishes explicitly clear, then you use clues to figure it out and apply until informed otherwise. Like for example when a trans women walks into a room with a wig and a dress on.If you have any common sense within you then you can very easily figure out their preferred pronoun is "she".
Choice C is the most basic and what all human beings do in any situation where we don't have specific clues... We assume. Based on our own life experiences it's not difficult to tell what people tend to want. If someone is struggling to carry a bunch on things and is walking up to a door you can use your common sense to tell you that person would like for you to get the door for them.
All human interaction involves some combination of these three "levels". You use them every single day.
Why do you need me to explain this to you?
Therefore, (1) respect isn't solely about wishes (despite you previously arguing it), and thus (2) it's possible to respect someone without adhering to their wishes (as shown by the "or" for my definition of respect).
1) I never argued it was "solely" about respecting others wishes. I literally just broke down for you what "the most" means according to the English language.
2) Yes, as I already explained, it's possible to respect someone without adhering to their wishes, because respect can come in other forms. But it's not possible to respect someone while you're disrespecting them.
You don't get to pretend one aspect of respect wipes out disrespect. That's like saying a man who brought home flowers to his wife is "treating her good" while ignoring that he gave her a black eye the night before.
As far as why respecting someone else's wishes is the most basic form, that's because this is what it involves the overwhelming majority of the time in real life. The vast majority of the time we are not in position to violate the rights of others, so this is not generally what people are talking about.
And for the umpteenth time let me remind you how absurd your argument is... You are claiming you are respecting these people while outright disregarding all 3 aspects of your own definition;
Rights? No, you don't believe they should have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies
Feelings? No, you're calling them mentally ill because of how they feel
Wishes? No, you think anyone who regards them is evil
Your position here couldn't be any more opposite of the position you claim to hold.
If a terrorist wished to blow up a shopping center, would it be disrespectful to call the police or bomb squad to thwart that wish of his/hers?
Yes. But disrespect comes with a negative connotation that doesn't apply here. Disrespect is to act towards someone without regard for their wishes, feelings or rights. So if you are not regarding them, you are not respecting them.
Would you respect terrorist's plot to blow up a shopping center? No - Then you would disrespect them.
This is 3rd grade level stuff.
Again, I'm using the science as a premise to reach my conclusions.
The conclusions you are reaching have nothing to do with science, so your whole argument is invalid at the outset
Therefore, it's probably not a good idea to perform irreversible, costly surgeries on people that don't help them.
It wasn't your idea, you didn't perform the diagnosis, and it's not your body. What's at issue here isn't the success rate of the surgery, it's about who has the right to make that decision. Not only are you injecting yourself into something that has absolutely nothing to do with you, but then you have the nerve to pretend you're respecting them by doing so. Wow.
You claimed that my argument was "bigotry".
No, I claimed your argument is apparently fueled by bigotry, because only a negative emotional reaction to these people can explain the absurdities you are engaging in.
Should transgender teenagers, who often simply grow out of transgenderism, have the "freedom" to perform basically irreversible transgender reassignment surgery, drastically altering their puberty and making it super hard to ever somewhat resemble their biological sex ever again?Your answer to this is currently yes.
No, it's not, because your portrayal of what actually happens (which I broadly support) is cartoonishly silly.
Teenagers don't just walk into a medical clinic, ask for surgery, and walk out that afternoon with a new set of genitals. This decision involves the teenager and their parents consulting with a team of doctors who have to go through a barrage of beurocratic processes to determine what type of care is recommended and approved. I can in theory be swayed to still be against it, but honestly, I just don't care because no matter the result what you're advocating for is to remove the individual, their parents, and their doctors all from the equation so you can make that decision for them. I am just not deluded enough and narcissistic enough to think I'm going to sit here in Google and teach myself this issue so well that I will be able to decide what's best for the individual than the individual and the team around them.
BTW I'm curious, do you consider yourself a freedom loving conservative patriot?
You need to provide studies for the points you make.
Respect is the default position. Your position violates the default position, therefore the onus is on you to prove why everyone else should move from the default position. You've failed to do so.
I don't need a study to prove that. Your studies do not address the conclusion you're trying to prove. 100 invalid connections do not amount to one valid one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
God doesnt need to exist for me to believe in him. Plus, he can come into existence at any time since he is all powerful.
This is easily the most agregious violation of logic I have ever seen anyone admit to.
Logic as the foundation upon which all intelligible conversation is based. Arguments and proof are products of logic, so if you don't accept it then there is no reason for anyone to engage in any kind of intellectual discission with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I do care about this reality a little, maybe the world's tiniest bit. Kingdom of heaven is more important than reality.
Reality is defined as "all that exists", so if there is a heaven and that heaven is run by God, they would be part of reality.
By telling us you would take the bible over the findings of science, and that you don't care care if we showed you proof to contradict your cherished beliefs, you are explicitly telling us that you aren't concerned with finding out what is actually real, but rather just picking and choosing whatever beliefs make you feel good.
All of my arguments were relevant to the topic
I believe X because the bible says so it's not an argument, it's a pronouncement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
if scientists say the opposite of what Bible says, I prefer to believe the Bible rather than to believe the scientists
Translation: I pick and choose what I believe, because I don't care about reality, I only care about what makes me feel good
Sorry guys, only relevant arguments count.
Then you're entire thread is disqualified at the outset
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how ridiculous
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
lol of course it doesn't.
So, you prefer to live under a dictatorship, is that correct?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sorry, but your argument is an assumption that Trump cannot do it.
It's not an assumption genius. Trump doesn't command Russia, and if you actually understood anything about why this war is taking place you would know that Putin had no reason to care what the US does, aside from a military intervention, which you are again, against.
Plus, all others promise to extend the war, so I will say Trump should win.
All others are promising to help Ukraine fight back against a literal invasion of their country. To be against that says quite a bit about you.
So since this seems to be the only issue you care about I'm just curious to ask, does the fact that Trump represents an existential threat to American democracy itself bother you, or does that issue just not compare to you with whether Russia gets to invade Ukraine?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So if we know that some promises will come true, the most logical thing to do is to vote for a candidate who has best promises.
The most logical thing to do is to vote for a candidate whose promises are aligned with reality.
You seem to be basing your entire argument in favor of Trump on the idea that he promised to end the war in Ukraine, yet you either disregard or are really so ignorant that you don't understand that Trump has no power to do that aside from starting an all out war with Russia, which you would appear to be deeply against.
Again, Trump's stated plan is that he's going to sit down with Putin and Zelensky and essentially tell them to knock it off. That demonstrates clear as day that Trump has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and is insanely unqualified for pubic office to anyone who lives in the real world.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Way to cave into the terrorists Joe
Well at least we agree republicans are terrorists
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
American citizens believed it, no?
Yes, there are idiots or there who believed this. Those idiots weren't running to be in charge of the federal government.
So it was a good believeable lie at the time.
There are also idiots or there who believe the earth is flat. Are you going to vote for the guy pushing that as well?
Hey, its not my fault that every US president is bad. I am just going for the one who has best promises and has a history of making some of his promises a reality.
Every president accomplishes some things they promised, so by that standard every candidate would make a good president.
Presidents don't just roll a dice and grant which ever promises the dice landed on. There is a reason Trump promised to wipe out the debt and instead increased it by another 10 or so trillion. It was an absurd promise, so anyone who voted for him in part because of that promise is a moron.
The fact that you wish it were so doesn't make it a good promise. Reality matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
So, again, it makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know. So, your universal principle of 'respect other people's wishes' fails to make sense.[Dropped by Double_R]
I've been through this same point with you at least half a dozen times. You know damn well what the trans community's wishes are, so it's bad enough that you're really sitting here pretending after all these weeks to not understand that, but to pretend you don't understand basic human nature is humiliating. Just stop.
Therefore, your insistence on "respect" being solely about "wishes" got blown out by the word "or" from my definition of respect: "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others".And you even you seem to agree with this because you're now starting to refer to other aspects of respect.
This is what happens when you skim through looking for gotchas as opposed to reading what others actually wrote. Let's look at part of that first example again:
"yet not only is treating others how they wish to be treated literally the most basic form of respect that there is..."
The bold and especially the underlined already tell you that this isn't the only form. If it were, I wouldn't be calling it the most basic form because "most" means by definition that there are others.
I've rebuilt the context you deleted to show that you originally claimed that I don't respect their (transgender people's) rights.I then gave an example of me respecting their rights.
I've already explained to you that that's not how respect works. Respecting someone 50% of the time and disrespecting them the other 50% does not qualify as "treating them with respect". So listing off ways that you are respecting someone does not negate the ways in which you are disrespecting them.
This is like arguing that you're not cheating on your spouse because sometimes you don't.
You're not being reasonable when you claim a researched, scientific point I've made is absurd
I'm not calling the "researched scientific point" absurd, I'm talking about trying to connect a researched scientific point to something that has nothing to do with science.
Science tells us what is, not what should.
Do we need to respect people who claim they can fly because they did so in a dream?
I don't understand what is so difficult about this to you.
"Fly" has an actual definition. It is an empirical action that we can judge other actions against to see whether they have this capability. Something or someone either can fly or they can't. That's objective.
When a man tells you they are born in the wrong body, that is not a disputable claim. Wrong is subjective, and is determined by the individual. You cannot tell someone else whether they were born in the right or wrong body, only they can decide how they feel about that for themselves.
These two things are not remotely the same. Do you understand that?
Explain to us how preventing a suicidal person from getting hold a gun to blow themselves away is "bigotry".You can't.
Nor would I try to because I've never said anything remotely resembling this. But it was a nice strawman.
Your kind who allows...
I couldn't care less about your assessment of "my kind". Address what I've actually argued.
You do all this to look virtuous in front of your friends.
How silly. I don't have any friends here. Stop projecting.
This reassignment surgery is what you've argued for several times, so don't make your argument to be 'acknowledge them for who they identify as' when you're doing A LOT more (harm) than that.
These are completely different things.
I believe everyone should have the right to do what they wish with their own body. Cause you know, freedom. Something the political right used to pretend to care about.
That has nothing to with you or anything I'm advocating for with regards to how we should treat trans people.
The fact is that haven't provided the studies to make your points
Because my point is that you haven't met your burden of proof.
You're reframing your laziness and ineptitude as a virtue
You can call an unwillingness to sit here and go study by study, line by line with you for hours and hours on end laziness of that makes you feel better. Fact still remains that you haven't even connected the most basic dots your entire argument is sitting upon. This reminds me of arguing with theists trying to use the bible to prove that god exists and then calling me lazy because I'm unwilling to go passage by passage with them.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, thats why he became president. As I said, since americans are suckers for lies, they should elect Trump again since he offers the best lies.
I don't know how you are qualifying "the best lie", that's got to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.
A good lie would be one that is at least believable. When someone says something so obviously ridiculous as "Im going to wipe out the debt in 8 years" they're either grossly ignorant of how the country's finances work or they are such a brazen liar that they don't even recognize the concept of truth itself. Whichever it is, either one automatically disqualifies the moron who said it.
Some of those might not even be lies. For example, before becoming president, Trump said that he will go to North Korea and talk with Kim. And he did. So he is obviously not a complete liar.
If saying one true thing qualifies someone as not being a "complete liar" then no person who has ever walked the face of the earth is a complete liar, so the term itself is completely meaningless.
In your pathetic defense of Donald Trump this has become your MO - to pretend words have no real meaning and that everything is the same. So there's no difference between a pathological liar and any person who has told a lie. That's the level of absurdity one has to reduce themselves to in order to try and justify voting for this idiot. It truly is a cult.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes it absolutely is - That's the whole strategy. As long as republicans keep accusing democrats of doing the very thing they are guilty of, they get to hide behind people like you who come along and go "duh it's just politicians on both sides squabbling". Logic and evidence be damned.
It clearly works.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Isnt it funny how all of your presidents are mass murderers?
This sentence is just semantic nonsense.
President of the United States is a demanding and consequential job. With terrorist groups out there and other groups with irresolvable differences, death is not avoidable. The only question is who you decide to protect, how, and at what cost. Pretending that being in the situation to have to make those difficult choices and those choices resulting in people dying is akin to anything resembling what we think of when the term mass murderer is invoked is absurd.
since there are no decent human beings among US presidents, you might as well elect Trump
That there are no decent human beings among US presidents is your apparent position, not mine. But even if it were, that doesn't mean we get to pretend that bad, worse, and abhorrent are all the same thing. They're not.
I think Sam Harris put it best; "if Trump were half as bad as he is, he would seem worse, because he would be recognizably bad"
Trump is on a level of his own. No serious candidate has ever been so ignorant to ask why we can't just use our nukes, or why nuclear proliferation is bad thing. No candidate before has ever been so ignorant or so such a shameless liar to claim they'll wipe out the debt in 8 years. No candidate has ever been so vile to propose that we stop all Muslims from coming into the country. If any other candidate had done any *one* of those things their political career would have instantly been over. But with Trump those are just things I named off the top of my head. I could do this at least 7 or 8 more times before I would even have to go to Google to remind myself of all the other breathtakingly stupid, ignorant, vile, petulant, and childish things he has done.
He is not the same.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nope, neither party has evidence.
Funny how we started with the claim that both parties cheat to now asserting that there is no evidence of cheating.
Whether there is evidence of "either party" cheating however is really just a sematic game. If by cheating you're talking about nefarious characters conspiring behind the scenes to illegally and fraudulently sway the vote totals then Trump's phone call to Georgia aside (which is not nothing, btw), there's really no evidence of this in any wide spread sense.
If however we go with a more simple definition such as working to install the person who lost into office then it's not disputable that the republicans are guilty of this. Claiming there is no evidence there is absurd because they mostly did it all out in the open and are continuing their efforts.
Created:
Trump is on trial because, despite not committing any war crimes
Trump literally assassinated another country's secretary of defense whom we were not at war with and then bragged about how he "died like a dog". Then, just to get what he really wanted out of it, he arranged a fake photo op in order to create a portrait of him looking tough as the attack was (allegedly) happening.
This was his second attempt at this, his first attempt to recreate the famous Osama bin laden raid photo failed just as spectacularly.
I'll take a president that kills for the protection of their own citizens over a president that kills because he thinks it makes a great photo op any day.
And that's before recognizing just how full of shit your premise here is. Trump not only killed far more people through a far elevated drone strike program, he also did it while changing the rules so that drone strike deaths didn't have to be reported so he wouldn't face accountability for it. He of course did this so idiots like yourself would have another divorced-from-reality reason to fawn over the dear cult leader.
"The Trump administration has significantly increased the tempo of drone strikes in a number of countries, and it has relaxed the rules governing the targeting of these strikes. The result has been an increased number of civilian casualties with even less accountability than before and no redress for the innocent people caught in the middle of our endless wars."
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So on other words; no you have no evidence for your original claim. Got it.
Created:
-->
@TheApprentice
Well, unfortunately our standards are so far in the ditch that before we can start talking about what qualities make one a good president we need to start with something we used to take for granted; Qualities that make one a decent human being.
A capacity to be shamed, for starters. A basic commitment to reality and logical consistency - doesn't mean 100% honest and truthful all the time but at the very least one that adheres to the notion that political positions should be coherent and that basing them off of provably false assumptions is bad. Concern for other people, not just oneself. A basic recognition that other people might know more than you, especially if they've been working in a particular field their entire lives.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Pretty much every candidate in the field meets these basic qualifications except Trump. The only other candidate I'd put on his level of terribleness is Ron Desantis. With Desantis though it's different. He's a very capable person but this is not someone who cares about the people he represents at all, at least not unless they voted for him.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So on others words; no you don't.
Shocking
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Elections these days is about who cheats harder.
Do you have any evidence at all that the democrats are engaged in any widespread effort to cheat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I've had many experiences where I suddenly found myself feeling like some activity I had engaged in many times before was wrong and decided not to do it anymore. I attribute it to personal growth and maturity as I learn to become a better person. I have no idea why anyone would claim it must have come from some other force of nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Your insistence on "respect" being solely about "wishes" got blown out by the word "or".
That was never my argument and if you were arguing in good faith you would know that.
This is one way to tell when someone is losing the argument, I already broke down why the word "or" fits into the definition and gave you a clear example to show why my point stands. You ignored all of that just to repeat the same argument as if I hadn't already refuted it.
Again, imagine I treat your wishes with regard while disregarding your rights. Can I walk away from that situation saying that I treated you respectfully? According to you I can, which is ridiculous.
Transgender people should be allowed to vote. Transgender people should be allowed to defend themselves before a court of law, if prosecuted for a crime.That's respect for their rights.
So as long as I can cherry pick a few rights to allow you the privilege of enjoying, I can take away any other right I want and still claim I'm respecting your rights. Is that correct?
I've already demonstrated that their feelings of 'being in the wrong biological sex body' doesn't fit the science, so this is an established fact that you didn't push back against at all (wisely so, imo).
I don't recall where or how you made this point, but I probably wouldn't have responded to it because it's absurd. Science does not address feelings, and gender dysphoria is not about disputable biological facts. You are woefully ignorant on what this conversation is even about, which by this point you have no excuse to be.
This stance you have on enabling mental illness doesn't make you a good person at all.
How amusing it is to watch someone repackage their bigotry as selfless virtue, while pretending everyone else is terrible.
So, again, it makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know. So, your universal principle of 'respect other people's wishes' fails to make sense.
Do you ever leave your mom's basement?
I'm being a bit tounge and check here, but in all seriousness, if 'treat other people how they wish to be treated' is something you just cannot make sense of that suggests to me that you really have no grasp of basic human nature and social skills.
We treat others how they wish to be treated by learning how they wish to be treated. You can just ask them, but in any event it takes some work and getting to know people. There is a reason we don't act the same way around someone we just met as opposed to someone we've known for years, we don't yet know what offends them or what they're into. Once we learn we adjust accordingly out of respect.
This is really basic stuff. Why on earth do I need to sit here and explain this to you?
I said you were enabling transgender people to self-harm themselves.It's staggering that you don't think this is an important point.
I don't think it's important because it's just plain stupid. Literally the only thing I've suggested we should all do is acknowledge them for who they identify as. That's it. That's not enabling them to self harm.
The solution to the California wild fires is not to put them out. The solution is to respect their wishes to burn.
Concession noted
My argument should be preferred.
This isn't a formal debate. If I were arguing for points I would engage and spend hours upon hours with you going through these studies line by line to show you why you don't know what you're talking about. I'm just not interested and wouldn't have the time of I was. I'm just not as obsessed with this topic as you are.
The trans community is very appreciative I'm sure for all the hard work you're putting in to help them out of the goodness of your heart.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, it's common sense of you actually listened to the entire story in context instead off just zeroing in on the part that gives you a rise.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Don't let the plain meaning of text confuse you, you have a conspiracy theory to stick to after all.
Don't let the meaning of the word "though" confuse you, I know it's a tough one.
I wonder what "If you don't fire the prosecutor you don't get the billion dollars" means?
Here, let me help... It means: "the United States will no longer provide aid to your country until we can be assured that the money we send you is being used for the reasons were sending it"
This isn't complicated.
Oh and don't forget "I said: call him".
Translation: "if you'd like to speak to the manager, aka the president is the United States, aka the person in charge of all US policy who is well aware and has clearly approved of this since I do not have the authority to withhold this aid, go right ahead."
But you were saying about a conspiracy theory?
BTW, if you want an example of another real life conspiracy, Google "dress rehearsal".
Created: