Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Stephen
I have seen quite a few Transsexual and their supporters carrying out aggressive attacks and assaults and I gave a few examples above. Would you like more?
No. I can show you anecdotal examples to prove any point I want, including conflicting ones. That's why they do not qualify as evidence.
do you really think it needs to be pointed out that shooting bud light cans and shooting school children are not the same thing?No, but it appears that you did. As did Ludo.
Right. So me asking you what your point is = me needing your asinine comparison pointed out. Ok bro...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Using your logic, that cake in the oven was never cake in the first place.
Correct. A bunch of gooey stuff mixed together is not a cake. It needs the oven to become one, so if the oven is unwilling to be subjected to producing heat, the cake you are imagining will have only ever existed in your mind.
Mother nature (God), whichever you prefer, created a natural process for us as humans to survive and thrive. Thats why it matters.
That's why it matters to you. There is nothing about "mother nature" which is just a label we slap onto our own observations of how the universe functions, which inherently or even logically supports us "caring" about what means we bring about human life.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
My point is that there is a massive fkn difference between shooting Bud cans in protest and shooting up a school full of children because someone doesn't agree that you are a man when in reality you are woman.
Of course there is. So what?
Of all the mass shooters out there you cherry picked one of the insanely rare examples where the shooter was trans, so are you making a point about trans people, or do you really think it needs to be pointed out that shooting bud light cans and shooting school children are not the same thing?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Like I said, I don't think it matters whether it is a bad guy or somebody experiencing a psychotic episode. What matters is the ability to be safe.
Agreed. So the question is, why do you think having more guns wondering around our society makes us safer?
If, in your gun utopia where everyone is carrying a loaded weapon, do you really think the guy coming at you would be doing so with a knife?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Therefore, if war in Ukraine is atrocious, and supporting Ukraine with weapons is prolonging the war and causing more lives to be lost, that tells us how supporting Ukraine with weapons is morally wrong and atrocious.
Just stop for a minute and think about the absurdity of the argument you are trying to advance; that giving Ukraine the tools they are asking us for so that they can defend their homeland is morally wrong and atrocious. If you can't see the issue with that statement I can't help you.
But here's the thing, this is all irrelevant to this conversation. You seem to have forgotten what were arguing about so let me remind you - you are claiming CNN is as bad as Fox News. If your last post wasn't clear enough that you have no case to support this claim then you are beyond reason.
What was proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Fox News intentionally lied to their own audience for ratings. We're talking about lies, as in contortions of objective reality, not opinions.
Yet your whole defense of your position is coming down to you presenting ridiculous arguments to claim that giving Ukraine the help they are asking for is morally wrong. Even if you are right (you're not)... so what? All you've even attempted to show is that you don't agree with their opinions. That does not make their viewpoints propaganda.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And what about your tranny shooting up a school full of children and teachers and killing three of each?
What about it? Is there a point you think this one example makes?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You have done zero to alter your opinion or to address my concerns about these vulnerable people . You have pretty much just spoke past me. A lot of Democrats at this point would have at least told me that they are not for a gun ban but want to have some more hoops to jump through to make it harder for criminals to get guns.
I've never advocated for a total gun ban nor would I be in favor of such a proposal. When I argue the points I do, I am responding to the illogic of the positions being presented. It's one thing to be against a gun ban, it's another to claim a gun ban wouldn't significantly decrease the amount of people killed by guns every year. The latter is at least defendable, the former is not.
If we are going to find areas of common ground we need to start with the simplest of ideas and work our way from there. Anyone claiming more guns = less gun violence is in my view not worth discussing anything further.
So let me address a few points first.
I find your comment about my attitude towards banning guns being child like incredibly ironic, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You immediately go into criminals vs law abiding citizens as if the world is really that simple. This isn't a comic book where the world can easily be broken down into good guys vs the bad guys. Every story has at least two sides, and everyone is the good guy in their own story. Real life involves nuance, breaking people up into two categories and appointing yourself as the arbiter of which group everyone belongs in is every bit as childish and simplistic as you allege my position to be.
Second, the democrat areas vs republican areas thing is ridiculous. Crime is higher in areas that are densely populated. That's basic human nature. And democratic policies are more focused on the issues facing people living within densely populated areas, so they tend to elect democrats. You're causality is backwards. In fact, if you really want to get into it, per Capita the highest crime ridden states are red states. I could easily argue your point against republicans but I'm not dishonest enough to do so because I recognize there are many factors that play into it, the least of which being whether the governor has a D or an R next to their name.
Third, I am not claiming criminals should have access to anything the rest of us shouldn't. How are you even being serious? As far as I can tell, this is an extension of the tired old "criminals will always get guns because they don't follow our laws" argument, which is childishly absurd. If that was the logic you really lived your life in accordance with then you wouldn't lock your doors at night, because criminals would just find a way in anyway.
We have laws for a reason, if people aren't following them we don't just throw our hands up and get rid of the law. If 3D printed guns are a problem, pass new regulations to limit its effect. If guns being smuggled in is a problem, add more resources to stop it from happening. The question isn't whether there is a solution, the question is whether we care about the problem enough to solve it.
So moving on to your ultimate point here, what would change each other's minds? I don't know what would change your mind but I'll start with what seems to be some of our fundamental differences;
You seem to take it as a given that criminals, gangs, mass shooters, and any other meme of "bad guy with a gun" you can think of will remain unchanged regardless of what we do. I reject that. I believe laws work when properly executed. I believe that banning something makes it harder to get, when something is harder to get that makes it less likely that the next bad guy will be able to get it, and when something is less likely it will happen less often.
I also reject your "equalizer" mentality. Yes it makes the old lady equal to the big scary criminal, it also turns the disturbed puny kid into a monster capable of ending 20 plus lives in a matter in minutes. We will never all be equal, you pull up with a hand gun and I'll pull up with a bullet proof vest and an AK47. So where does this stop? Is your vision of the just society you want to live in really one where every single individual walking down the street or into a bar is carrying a loaded weapon? One where any confrontation anywhere has the potential to turn shoot out? And what then is the point point of having police? You talk about guns being an equalizer, I can't imagine anyone in our society being more negatively impacted by that idea than them.
Regarding your point about people in North Dakota somewhere, this is why I do not believe in a total gun ban. I do believe people should have access to the means they need to protect themselves in their private residence. But no one needs an AK47 to do that. No one needs to own 40 different firearms or extended magazines to do that.
So as far as I can tell, what it really comes down to between us is our basic value - you appear singularly focused on what you consider to be the vulnerable population and ensuring they can stand up to the bad guys. My focus is on everyone. I want to live in a world where there are less needless deaths. That includes the vulnerable, so I'm not sure how you could possibly convince me to disregard my concerns for the rest of society to focus on just one segment of it, but you're welcome to keep trying.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
and for some reason let the local politicians who are doing retarded shit like defunding the police off the hook.
Can you provide one example of a police department that has been defunded and saw a noticible crime increase as a result?
he will never be able to piece together that the most liberal cities like Chicago and Detroit are the biggest high crime areas
Right wingers love talking about Chicago and Detroit, as if they are the only cities in the country.
Do you not find it odd that especially when talking about gun violence, the cherry picked examples of choice that every right winger loves to repeatedly hold up just happen to be cities either in red states or that border red states where guns are easily and readily accessible? Meanwhile cities that are no where near such ease of gun access have no where near the same problem?
Me- a lot of people get shot by guns, how do we fix it?Son- we should just take everyone's guns away so they can't shoot people anymoreActual liberal policy. Complete gun bans
Self own.
If we want people to stop getting shot, taking away the guns would accomplish that. It's so simple a child could figure it out, yet here we are...
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
when a country as corrupt as Ukraine tries to bring NATO to Russian borders knowing such action will lead to war, and asks the US to support it in the suicidal war it is currently leading, I believe it is relevant to know that the US is supporting a corrupt country that has no chance of winning the war, and that US support is just increasing the amount of deaths in yet another unwinnable war, and that Biden caused the world to return to cold war over something as corrupt as Ukraine.
So this is your justification that CNN is lying - the fact that they aren't telling the viewers this. Ok, let's break it down.
The reason CNN isn't telling it's viewers these "facts" is because they are either, false, completely irrelevant, or common sense.
The bulk of this paragraph long justification was you explaining three separate times that Ukraine is corrupt. First of all, I already pointed out that Ukraine since Zelenskys election has shown no signs of being any more corrupt than any other country of it's size and financial standing, so there is nothing remarkable on that front worth highlighting here in the first place and you have made no attempt to show otherwise.
Second and far more importantly... Who the hell cares? What is going on in Ukraine is atrocious because it is a crime against humanity. Russia is literally bombing apartment buildings, schools and hospitals. This isn't a war against a corrupt political regime, it's a war against the people of Ukraine's right to self governance, which is in turn a war against democracy itself. No one should give a fuck how corrupt of a country Ukraine is, if you can't see the problem with what Russia is doing and why anyone with a pulse should be deeply disturbed by it you have very serious issues.
There is absolutely no reason CNN or anyone else should be talking about this within this story.
Beyond that, you argue that this war is unwinnable. You are just factually wrong. Not only is it winnable, many would argue Ukraine is winning. That of course depends on how you define winning - no one is saying Ukraine will bring Russia to it's knees. The goal for Russia is to take over Ukraine, yet the Russian military has proved remarkably inept at accomplishing this while the Ukrainians have proved the opposite. Russia is losing resources and support, no one knows how this will turn out.
You argue that CNN isn't telling the audience that war will lead to more lives lost. They don't need to tell anyone that because that's common sense. That's what war is, everyone knows that so expecting CNN to talk about it is asinine.
Lastly, you argue that Biden caused the world to go into another cold war. This is again, asinine. Biden did not cause any of this, Putin caused it when he unilaterally decided to invade a sovereign nation over his own paranoia and ego. Blaming Biden for that is ridiculous.
So do you have anything else? Because so far you have not offered one valid criticism of CNN to put them anywhere near the same camp as Fox News. And again, even if you had a point with any of these arguments (you don't) that still would only go half way to proving your point. What was proven beyond a reasonable doubt about Fox News is that its hosts openly rejected the stories they were telling their own viewers on air because they understood that lying to their audience was better for business. You still have not even attempted to show CNN doing anything like that.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So you support hiding the evidence about Ukraine being a corrupt country, based on your opinion that it is irrelevant.
No, I support the news reporting facts which are relevant to the story they are telling.
Your entire notion of Ukraine is nonsense right off the bat. This is a country that has had as terrible past with corruption, which is exactly why they elected an actor and a comedian to be their president. Zelensky didn't win because of his experience, his entire platform was about ending the rampant corruption in Ukraine. And while no one election is going to fix it, there is no evidence Zelensky had done anything other than focus on said platform. So the fact that you keep pretending like Ukraine's corruption is anywhere near as bad as it was before is already nonsense.
But beyond that, again, this story really has nothing at all to do with Ukraine. This is about Russia using its power to violate international law in a way that is not only remarkably kruel, but threatening to democracy itself. Nothing about Ukraine's alleged corruption has anything to do with this story, so it's just plain stupid that you keep bringing it up as if anyone is supposed to be focusing on that.
Which brings me to this...
If CNN emoloyees have the same opinion and try to convince me by hiding facts and giving incomplete reports, then that means they are lying.
Incomplete reports are only lying if what is left out would change the conclusion of the facts that were presented. Based on the above example I think we found the problem here... You seem to have no idea what is relevant or why, at least when it comes to understanding alternative points of views. So you concoct this notion in your mind that what you want to hear is relevant, then when it isn't talked about pretend that this means they are lying to you. Not even close.
Just because you want to hear something doesn't mean that something is relevant.
The difference between news and propaganda is that propaganda promotes a specific world view, like CNN does.
No, it's not. You're talking about media bias, which is not the same thing. Bias is not deceit. The latter is what you need to call something propaganda.
Deciet is when you lie or at the very least understand that something is relevant to the story you are telling and intentionally leave it out. You have no evidence that CNN is systematically doing this. With Fox news it was always beyond obvious, now it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If something doesn't have the capacity for life, then it isn't alive, and doesn't have any internal value in of itself.
If something has the capacity for life then by definition, it isn't life... Yet. So why do you place it in the same category as that which is currently life?
This is in many ways the central question of this debate, because if the mother decides she does not wish to carry the pregnancy to term then the capicity for life is in every practical sense, non existent.
I said through natural processes, meaning, the natural process of birth, using the mother's womb to get nutrients. It's still consuming by itself. It's not biologically part of the mother body, it is something different.
Why does it matter whether it's through natural processes or not? This really sounds like a reach.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just like nobody watches the past 50 years of broken promises from DC.
It always amuses me when people take it to heart that politicians broke their promises. If you were dumb enough to believe them in the first place that's on you.
The problem with our politics isn't the politicians, it's the voters. Power in government is divided for a reason. The good side of it is that no one person can be a dictator. The bad side is that getting things done requires cooperation, which can be practically impossible in a divided government.
Every politician who runs for office knows this, and therefore knows that they will not be able to accomplish half of what they say. But they also know that the people at large are too stupid to understand this and so any politician who runs honestly and tells the voters "well, I'll only be able to get things done if the other politicians let me" will never get elected.
That's a systemic problem, it isn't going anywhere as long as politicians are elected by the people. To complain about that is to complain about basic human nature, which is utterly pointless.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I already said why I believe so in my previous comment:"Surely then it is amazing how every CNN employee has the same opinion on Russia and Trump, and how every CNN report about those two aims to discredit those two."
The fact that CNN employees tend to share the same opinions, regardless of how vehemently you disagree with them, does not logically lead to the conclusion that the network is lying to you. Try again.
So when CNN hires people who want to create a wrong opinion about Trump and Russia, and hide the fact that Ukraine is a corrupt country fighting a suicidal war, and that Biden started another cold war and brought back 1970s, you say that is not as bad as Fox.
No, not even close.
First of all, there is no such thing about a wrong opinion. You believe CNN is wrong about Trump and Russia. Ok. This is where facts and logic come in. We can both look at the evidence and arrive at different conclusions. Neither of us in this case are lying.
What's different about Fox News is that the stories they are telling you, regardless of whether it's a matter of fact or opinion, are stories they themselves don't believe. This is what the dominion lawsuit showed the world. There is no evidence of anything like this on CNN or any other major news outlet, anywhere. This is not a small difference, this is what makes the difference between news and propaganda.
Everything else you stated are just your ignorant conclusions about the stories you are seeing. No one talks about Ukraine's corruption because whether they are corrupt is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact that Russia invaded them to take over their land. And this cold war narrative of yours is pure nonsense.
The fact that CNN does not craft the narrative you want to hear does not put them in the same category as Fox News when it comes to their integrity. They are not the same.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The bullshit were the stories claiming Russia conclusively did it.
Do you have any examples of this?
I didn't think so.
And even if you did, taking the available evidence to its logical conclusion is an entirely different thing from telling your viewers a narrative that you yourself don't believe. Your examples at most prove the latter, we're talking about how Fox is guilty of the former.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you don't have a problem with the argument. Good, then we agree (again)
I think we both agree that you are not serious about defending your position and are really just here to troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
AND a chance for life, obviously.
Why is that obvious? How does that matter and how exactly do you measure that in its DNA composition?
.........yes, it can. Through natural processes.
Then remove the embryo from the mother and let it live its life. I'm all for it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Not one of these are examples of more than one intended victim, and in multiple cases the person was killed first and then dismembered afterward.
It was already common sense that chainsaws are not as prolific at ending human lives as guns, the fact that you even posted this article in an attempt to prove otherwise is just amazing.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Does that include blunt and stabbing objects?Hands, fists and feet?Motor conveyances?Chainsaws?Swords?
Don't think I've ever seen an innocent bystander killed by a chainsaw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not a right-triber dude.
I didn't say you were. Do yourself a favor and scroll up, read the conversation again, and take note of where it went off the rails.
I was asking you a series of questions to test your consistency. Rather than just answer them, you continue to duck and dodge.
You brought up Friedman's argument. I didn't.
I asked you if you support his view point, still no answer.
In the absence of an answer, I covered a range of possible answers in an attempt to forcefully move the conversation along.
You responded by pretending one in my range of answers was directed at you personally and have have turned the conversation into an allegation that I'm accusing you of something.
If you don't want me assuming your position, then just answer the question.
Do you support Friedman's position on heroine? Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Republican politicians helped to create this monster when they wouldn’t tell their voters the truth.
I think we can pinpoint where it started in a number of different places, for me the origin of this cartoonish republican party was in 1980 with Reagan's famous "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem" speech.
People will always act within their personal best interests, government is the counter to that by forming a body which is responsible to look out for the best interests of the whole. It's literal job is to solve the problems the individual won't.
When you allow yourself to be sold such a fundamentally incoherent and self defeating philosophy, what follows can only lead to absurdity. This is why half our government is now run by people who fundamentally don't believe in government. That's not a recipe for success, and justifying it takes an impressive amount of mental gymnastics which most of the political right has grown tired of and have just given up, opening the door wide open to a figure like Trump.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Surely then it is amazing how every CNN employee has the same opinion on Russia and Trump, and how every CNN report about those two aims to discredit those two.
It's not amazing. When you live in the real world and understand basic logic and critical thinking, the conclusions are pretty clear.
But that aside, what you're talking about still had nothing to do with it. Opinions are one thing, what Fox did was fire someone for reporting an objective fact. These are not the same thing, not even close.
CNN never fired anyone for telling the truth because the CNN doesnt hire the people who tell the truth in the first place.
Let me guess, you believe that because Fox News told you so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What about Milton Friedman's argument do you have an issue with?
I didn't say I had a problem with his argument, I asked whether you support his viewpoint here since you are the one deciding to use it.
If you do in fact support full legalization of heroine, then at least when it comes to your stance on freedom we can say you're being consistent. I suspect however that you don't, in which case would be pretty disingenuous of you to bring it up.
So which is it?
As far as my response goes, heroine is not a perfect analogy. I use it because it highlights the hypocrisy of those claiming gun rights are about freedom while supporting the government telling it's citizens what substances they are allowed to ingest. The big difference here is that the damage of legalizing heroine would be mostly contained to those who decide to use it. With guns, setting suicide aside, the victims of gun violence are almost never the ones who decided to purchase it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So... You are in favor of the legalization of heroine, and do not believe the government should regulate it's sale. Is that correct?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, CNN has never fired an employee for telling the truth for the reason being that it determined it's audience would feel disrespected by it.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The right wing audience has truly become the Republican Party's Frankenstein. Turns out that when you lie to them every day they start to believe you, and with every lie you entrench yourself deeper and deeper into an alternate reality you created which you are now forced by your audience to live in. Who knew?
What really amuses me is the fact that everytime I find myself arguing with a right winger and pointing out that Fox News is objectively a propaganda outlet they all claim they don't watch it. Funny how no one on the right gets their news from what is easily the largest distributor of right wing "news".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A sperm is not human. It carries some human DNA, like a lot of cells do, but it can't form into a human by itself.It needs the other half.
An embryo cannot form into a human by itself either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you are 100% sure he will never wake up, then no, he doesn't get the same rights because he is dead. Never waking up is dead.
Not under your definition. You argued that if it has human DNA and is alive in a scientific sense then it is human life. The man in an indefinite coma qualifies.
But now you're trying to argue that the potential to wake up is what makes him alive. Why does that matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So given that we recognize the constitution can be amended, the fact that something is in the constitution is not a logical reason to support defying basic common sense when it comes to how we handle it. I'm glad we agree on that point and can now move on to whether it makes sense to ban or highly regulate guns.
Your example here is to point out that when we banned alcohol it caused crime and chaos (aka a black market) to surface. I assume where you're going with this is to argue that banning guns will have the same effect thus we should just keep them fully available.
So let me ask you, do you support the full legalization of heroine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I wonder why guns keep getting a pass.The constitution. An archaic concept, often forgot about these days.
The constitution also says black people are 3/5ths of a person. It can be amended.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm happy to see people realize that nothing can realistically be done about these shootings. America is just a violent country, and violence like this has been of the American experience for centuries. It's our fate, it's just nowadays schools are targeted
I'm happy to see that right winners are finally starting to admit this instead of the usual deflection nonsense. At least now we can start to have an honest conversation and onlookers can see what the real divide here is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Demands for broad, sweeping policy reform in the face of a highly publicized crisis also do not add value.
In every other instance, the time to talk about how we prevent the next disaster is in the aftermath of said disaster. But suddenly when it comes to guns the logic is different.
I wonder why guns keep getting a pass.
This person would have passed any pre-purchase background check without difficulty.
Which is exactly why we should also be looking at the guns themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
please explain why we should regard the zygote as a person with all rights equal to a fully formed human.....................because it's a human life.A human with life. If we shouldn't regard it as a person with all rights, then we shouldn't regard anyone with rights.
Do you believe a man in a coma who will never wake up gets all of the same rights? Should the doctor who pulls the plug and the family that approved it go to jail for murder?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Plant life is defined as plant life.Mammal life is defined as mammal life.And human life is defined as human life.The zygote has human DNA, and is alive, therefore it is a human life by definition.
So you've managed to explain why we should define a zygote as a human life. Now please explain why we should regard the zygote as a person with all rights equal to a fully formed human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
1.) I claim fascists said X2.) You admit that I am saying you can discover this by looking at their speeches (or in this case a written document)3.) So in other words my "argument" is that fascists can be taken literally and at their word?No... I made no argument. This is a tautology. You're circling a consistent assertion.
We're talking about whether Trump is a fascist. In the course of this conversation we came across a disagreement about whether fascism conflates the state with the people, or whether it conflates the state with the individual at the helm.
You are claiming the former better fits to fascism. I am claiming the latter. So this is what we're trying to hash out.
Your argument in favor of the former is to show words uttered by what I can only assume is a well known fascist. Within this speech the speaker talks in a way that closer aligns the people and the state than the alternative. You are arguing that this proves your point, because we're bound to judge them based on their words and this is what they're saying.
I am pointing out why that is ridiculous.
You are ignoring how fascists operate. You are ignoring not only that fascists advance their agenda by appealing to people's emotions, which means using language in a way that is inherently disingenuous, but also that we judge whether someone is a fascist by judging how their words are used to advance their agenda. That's the part that actually matters, and that's the part you left off entirely while pretending you proved your point.
This is where the examples I brought up come in. If you want to cheat to win an election, just claim the other side is cheating so that you can pretend everything you're doing is in defense of election integrity.
You don't determine what someone's actual philosophy is based only on their words.
I did not say X. I did not say that "the state and the people are indistinguishable" (in some imaginary fascist ideal of the possible state). I said fascists claimed that.
Right, so you're not here to express an actual opinion that you have, you're just here to tell me what others have claimed. Ok bro...
Left tribe thinks anti-democracy is criticizing anything that's been labeled a free and fair election.
No, the left thinks anti-democracy is claiming a free and fair election was rigged without any evidence, because you know, Donald Trump said so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Either you think that a mothers' right to her body is more important than the life of an infant.Or you think that an infant is more important to a mothers' right to her body.
First off, and has been pointed out, abortion has nothing to do with infants.
Setting that aside, this is not simply a choice between two different rights as you continue to portray. We don't just weigh rights in the abstract, we have to consider them in their proper context. We both have equal right to sit in the open chair in the waiting room, until one of us sits in the chair. At that point the person standing does not get to contest which one should have the right to the chair.
We can go down this rabbit hole again where I'll point out that the fetus does not have a right to the mother's body and you'll go on and say it does because the woman had the audacity to have sex, so I'll take this back to what I've already pointed out before; this debate comes down to whether you accept the fetus as a person.
If you don't, then the woman's decision to engage is sex does not warrant her losing her rights to her body. If you do, then you'll see her decision as irresponsible and even cruel.
Everything else follows from that.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
it is your assertion that evil as part of a character is on a spectrum. Perhaps you ought to prove your assertion rather than simply whine about "false dichotomies".
It doesn't need to be proven, it is basic common sense. No reasonable person would claim everyone on earth is either purely good or purely evil.
you are putting man-made qualities onto a divine person. Nowhere else do we have omniscience or omnipresence or omnipotence? The divine and the human do have similarities - but they also have their differences.
None of the qualities you listed are tied to the concepts of good and/or evil, so this is irrelevant.
In my opinion, the same applies to God as the judge of the universe. He sentences and judges all. Both the wicked and the good. And so far as he does so within the rules of his character, then it is just, no matter what the subjective position of those who have been sentenced feel, or those watching.
If you begin by defining goodness as "that which aligns with God's character" then of course it would be absurd to claim God is anything but good. But at that point you're not advancing an argument, you're just citing a tautology which makes your point useless.
By the way, who exactly wrote the "rules of God's character"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I know that fascists conflated the people and the state far more than they conflated the autocrat with the state, although they did all three.Thus using original source material I have demonstrated that Trump's claim is less fascist than your fruedian slip.
Let's break this down in parts.
First, you are claiming fascists conflated the people and the state. Based on your example and arguments, you appear to be saying they did so in their speeches. So in other words, your argument is that fascists can be taken literally and at their word.
That's absurd.
Fascists are about using language to invoke powerful emotions within their followers. Using language that sounds appealing but it's completely divorced from the reality of their intentions is the prime weapon of a fascist.
If you want to get your followers to support your efforts to destroy the rule of law, you do it by accusing the other side of destroying the rule of law and thus giving yourself free reign to break the law in defense of it. This is really basic stuff, but you would be the idiot going 'duh he says he's for the rule of law so he must be the good guy'.
This is BTW exactly what Trump is doing - he ran as the rule of law candidate and now that the law has caught up to him is urging his supporters to take up arms (directly violating the rule of law) in defense of it.
You do not take fascists at their word. That's common sense.
Second, your continued assertion that fascism more closely aligns with conflating the people and the state as opposed to the autocrat and the state is ridiculous. Fascism is inextricably linked to autocracy. As an autocrat, you literally are the state. So for a fascist to conflate the people with the state is completely antithetical to everything they are striving for. Continuing to make this assertion demonstrates yet again that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Trump's rhetoric is deeply anti-government, which is antithetical to fascism.
No it's not. If you are a fascist your prime goal is to get the people to accept you over the current government so that people will give you the power to disregard it's boundaries, thus allowing you to expand your power.
You do not know this because it was convenient for those who indoctrinated you to think fascism was simply a rebranding of autocracy.
I never said it was a rebranding, I pointed out how the two are linked. Here's another example;
What is fascism?
Fascism is a movement that promotes the idea of a forcibly monolithic, regimented nation under the control of an autocratic ruler.
So apparently you think I've been indoctrinated by Miriam Webster and now time magazine. Perhaps in your world I should escape this indoctrination by heading over to Info Wars.
You are the type that trusts authority.
No, I'm the type that believes in expertise. Clearly you don't, which is mind boggling.
You are the type that only believes in approved conspiracy theories and rejects all others.
I'm the type that believes in epistemology, which means learning about and following basic rules of logic.
You are the type who thinks he is for democracy while applauding the erosion of election integrity.
Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I find it untenable to think that God is pure evil. the reason for this - is there is too much good in the world.This leaves only a holy God that intends for things to pass for his own holy will.
False dichotomy. Evil as a sumation of one's character is a spectrum. There is no other instance where we would cast aside atrocities and reject that someone is evil because we can show one good thing they have done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
They are humans born with a mental disorder. They are not normal humans.
What you are describing as a mental disorder is merely the fact that these people don't fit your mold. Therefore your augment is that morality is objective because all humans who have a moral conscious have a moral conscious.
And that is of course setting aside how even if your original premise were true would that make morality objective...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your opinion of the motives of the author irrelevant.
Then why are you asking me for my opinion on it?
Millions of OG fascists believed this.
Yes, that makes perfect sense and is why I described it as indicative of fascist tactics.
Were you under the impression that you were refuting what I said about it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
In some cases it's warrantedThat’s what l have been saying. And it’s warranted with pretty much everyone on this site.
But you appear to believe it's warranted based on the person you're talking to, not the comment to which you are replying so you are constantly throwing out this kind of stuff with no provocation.
It's a shame to me because you have a lot of good points, they just get lost in all of your insults.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
All humans share the same basic moral conscience. Therefore right and wrong exist,
So... Argumentum ad populuum? That's your case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There, you educated yourself. Still not quite right, but better.
Your projection is amusing.
Reading comprehension test, does this associate the state closer to the people or the autocrat (individual):
It sounds like an individual using fascist tactics to work his way to a dictatorship.
He talks about the state as being something sperate from the people, and talks about how the people should revere it. Those are not ideas that anyone who values democracy would push.
The way this person talks about the state also comes off as a thinly veiled attempt to sneak himself into that space. If you can get people to believe the state is untouchable and then gain power you can easily conflate yourself with the state, which is exactly what I talked about before.
So that's my take. Did I win?
Created:
Posted in:
No, it's not. The essential characteristic here is conflating the individual with the state.This is really basic stuff.You've been taught bad history. That's autocracy and it has many flavors, but fascism isn't one of them. I'd educate you but I don't believe you would care.
So you are sitting here arguing with me about fascism without even understanding what it is. I've noticed this seems to be a pattern with you.
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Autocracy is a form of government. Fascism is a philosophy that leads to autocracy in its most unjust form.
This is why fascists conflate the individual with the state, because in their minds they are one in the same. Conflating the people with the state is not something they do, because no fascist or aspiring dictator thinks of the people as being the entity governing their society. That would be completely antithetical to everything they are trying to achieve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What I am saying is that they are just as much a potential "fascist dictator" as the hypothetical Trump construction you made since we are only discussing "hypothetical" dictators.
Listing basic qualities that embody a conceptual definition, and then comparing those qualities to an individual to see if that individual is a match is one of the most basic and routine ways we go about determining whether the definition accurately describes the individual. This is what psychologists for example do to determine if someone has a diagnosable condition.
One would think this is really simple and shouldn't need explanation. Claiming that any politician has just as much potential to be a fascist dictator as Trump because they vaguely meet some of the checklist which describes him perfectly is every bit as absurd as arguing someone has just as much potential to be as bad as Ted Bundy because they like women.
Again, I find it really weird that you are taking known existing traits of current politicians, applying them to Trump, then claiming the "complete puzzle" of bad traits is somehow so much worse than the collection of bad traits endemic to the hundreds of bad politicians in DC.
Thinking off the top of my head, there is not a single politician in DC that meets any single one of the traits I listed to the degree of Trump, with the exception being some of the ones trying to be the next Trump.
The idea that it's "weird" to think of Trump as so much worse because he leads the pack in every single one of these traits is patently absurd.
How on earth do you go about determining whether someone meets a definition? Do you not understand the idea that some people fit a concept better than others? Is this really that complicated to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yes, it is one of the essential characteristics of fascism to conflate the people and the state.
No, it's not. The essential characteristic here is conflating the individual with the state.
This is really basic stuff.
You are the one doing it, not Trump.
No genius, I misquoted Trump's attack line, an error that would have been obvious to anyone actually listening to the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
In some cases it's warranted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You just didn't like to hear the fact that most politicians are guilty of parts of your "fascist dictator list"
What I hate is dealing with your constant strawmanning and caricaturing.
At no point was I nor have I ever suggested that most politicians wouldn't qualify in some vague way on parts of the checklist. When we talk about concepts like fascism we're talking about a spectrum, it's not all black and white as people liked yourself love to portray when convenient.
My point was not 'these points apply to Trump and only Trump' which is what you were replying to. My point was that Trump fits every single one of these traits in the extreme.
If you really don't think there's a difference between those two things I can't help you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You never fail to find your double standards.
I literally just explained how the two things are different.
Do you know what a double standard is?
Enemy of the people, not the state.
Correct. Are you correcting it because you wanted the gotcha, or do you think there is a meaningful point here?
Not free press, propaganda arm of the deep state.
We're talking about Trump and fascism. His actual words are what's at issue, not the fantasy concoction you invented in its place.
Not disinformation, dissenting information.
I believe Kellyann Conway referred to it as 'alternative facts'.
The former, as described, is a dialog about what should be allowed in our society.The former is sedition against the constitution.
Please provide one example of any prominent left wing figure promoting sedition against the constitution. I'll wait.
That had nothing to do with false flags, targeted censorship, and organized propaganda under the guise of press I'm sure.
Usual right wing gibberish uttered to deflect from the post which described in detail how Trump is a fascist.
Every single one of these things you mention are BS right wing contortions of reality. None of them happened, except the last one which we now call Fox News.
No Benito Mussolini is, and the differences are stark. Mussolini
Mussolini is not the only fascist, just because you think you can find a difference between him and Trump does not mean Trump is not a fascist. That's logic 101.
I would love to hear you come up with one meaningful difference here though...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I have always wondered what stupid people think about guns.Then I read DoubleR's opinions on them.I wonder no more, as now I know.
I used to wonder why right wingers believe the stupid things they do, till I realized a pattern of remarkable inability to comprehend words when those words conflict with their fantasy world view.
Case and point:
Question: Was that child who was shot to death killed by a gun or killed by another child?Answer: That child who was shot to death was killed by another child.Shall we ban all cars, because some children happen to walk behind their soccer mom's minivans and get ran over? I think not.Your "protect the children!" outcry is as incoherent as it is nonsensical.
Nothing about my OP had anything to do with some "protect the children" message, nor did I state anything resembling the idea that if someone is killed by a gun then all guns should be banned. You have, as usual, made all of that up and are now pretending you're attacking my points. You aren't. You're having a whole conversation in your head.
The point of the question and of this thread is to address one very simple question; do we recognize that the presence of a dangerous product makes us less safe?
We do when it comes to literally everything else. If a toy was found to be involved in a flurry of choking incidents we would recall the toy. What we wouldn't do is blame all of the parents while pretending the toy had nothing to do with it.
But when it comes to guns suddenly this very basic common sense notion goes out the window. Suddenly then it's "guns don't kill people, people kill people". What a stupid retort.
What we do with this is an entirely different conversation. One I'm always willing to have with people who know how to read.
Created: