Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Democrats and republicans are just members of a political group. Being a member on its own means nothing, the meaningful question to ask here is what Isa liberal vs a conservative. Today's republican party caters more so to conservative ideology (although the age of Trump does challenge some of that) while the Democratic party caters more so to liberals.
No one is ever really 100% anything. These are just generalizations, but basically, conservatives are about conservation, so they tend to favor positions they consider tried and true.
Liberals (aka progressives) favor change, so they are far more comfortable with society moving into new and unfamiliar territory.
The gender debate is a clear example of all this. Conservatives fight against recognizing chosen pronouns or gender changes while liberals favor the progression of this issue in our society.
Created:
Posted in:
You asserted he was a credible witness according to some generalized formula that anyone who testifies against their boss is credible.
No, I didn't. I asserted he was a credible witness because:
A) The nature of his admissions clearly had a negative impact his personal job security, and
B) Because as someone who donated a million dollars to the Trump campaign, he clearly supports him, thus his testimony goes against his own political ideology/interests
This is not some "generalized formula", these are basic facts that any person using logic would recognize positively impact the credibility of a witness. It's literally common sense.
BREAKING NEWS: Cohen lied in oath to implicate Trump. Trump told the truth about not knowing about the Stormy Daniels payment.
Trump already admitted he knew about the payment, his legal team is not even contesting this.
You just implied being under oath increases credibility. Maybe it does, but again the world seems a bit more complicated.
The world is very complicated, the arguments here are not complicated at all. Just because being under oath increases credibility doesn't mean everyone under oath is telling the truth.
Credibility is a spectrum. Each relevant fact contributes to where someone falls on that scale. This requires basic math skills and an understanding that 'definitely telling the truth' and 'definitely lying' are not the only two options.
Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, until you can disprove that you've lost this debate. <- How do you address that? You point out the irrelevance. No more is needed.
You point out the irrelevance and then challenge the person you're engaged with to explain why it is relevant. And when that person does, you address their argument.
When you claimed the articles were not relevant, I explained why they are. You just pretended I didn't.
Turns out it's pretty easy to "win" the debate by just calling the evidence against your position irrelevant and then pretending you have no responsibility to address the rebuttals to your assertion.
The elected leader of Ukraine was just as corrupt huh? Yet that kind of implies that more than half of Ukraine agreed to his leadership and therefore Shokin... unless you're an election denier that is.
Zelensky's entire campaign was built around an anti corruption platform in direct response to Porshenko's administration, and he won easily with over 70% of the vote. Tell me more about what the election results mean.
This is really basic stuff. How on earth are you seriously arguing with me about what happened in Ukraine and you do not know this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
He was threatened, like Cohen and just about everyone else who has been attacked around Trump. This is obvious. Your only alternative theory would be a sudden bout of honesty that never materialized before. It therefore may not have been in his own personal interests if he feared others more than Trump.I don't need hard evidence to counter your unprovable speculation about his motives.
So much here.
First, do you have any evidence whatsoever that Sondland or Cohen's actions are the result of threats they received? We both already know the answer. It doesn't matter to you what the evidence shows. If it conflicts with your narrative, just make shit up. You've done this time and time again throughout this debate, and everytime when pressed the best defense you can muster is a false equivocation of something I've argued, ask if whatever perceived problems exist within my argument justify your illogic.
As far as Sondland's "sudden bout of honesty"... It's called being under oath. So strange how everytime a Trump defender finds themselves in a position where lying could result in perjury charges they suddenly show up with a very different story than the one they've been selling to the MAGA base.
Also... Unprovable speculation as to his motives? What an absurd response.
I just explained to you why he is a credible witness. Do you have any response to anything I said apart from making up completely baseless conspiracy theories in order to hand waive away yet more evidence against your position?
Evidence of a coincidence? That's a new one. Explain the abstract form of such evidence. Contrast it with "proving a negative".
Evidence of a coincidence is any evidence which supports an alternative theory as more probable. It's literally how we determine anything as a coincidence.
Think of any coincidence you've ever observed. Why do you believe it was a coincidence and not a planned occurrence? Whatever your answer is, is the evidence it was a coincidence.
and yet despite going around in circles like that three times it still hasn't occurred to you that I haven't attempted to discredit those articles because I don't need to?
Of course not, why bother when you can just hand waive them away?
I know it sounds strange to you, but in debate you actually do have to address the arguments against your position. Anyone who cares about reality understand this.
...why exactly you need to extort anyone if everyone wanted him fired we don't know but there you have it.
Because the person above him was just as corrupt add her was. Is this a serious point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
and therefore what? He wouldn't dare lie to harm Trump?
No, it means he's a credible witness.
You seem incapable of seeing anything other than black and white. Evaluating a case like this involves nuance. No one is either 100% trustworthy or 0%, everyone is something in between, and we judge based on circumstances.
In this case, Sondland is testifying against his own personal interests. His testimony clearly endangers his job security, and he is testifying against someone he obviously supports. That makes his testimony as reliable as one could possibly be.
So does it mean he's 100% telling the truth? No. It means that you are demonstrating remarkable bias and unseriousness by dismissing it.
You feel entitled to dismiss correlation as coincidence.
No, I dismiss correlation as coincidence when I have evidence that it is just coincidence. That's the difference between us, you dismiss it as coincidence simply because it refutes your preferred narrative.
If you need evidence of this look no further than this one point. You have nothing to say here except to pretend I do the same thing you do and then argue a concocted double standard rather than just admitting this is a strong point against your position.
Your refusal to do so is what demonstrates your unseriousness. You can disagree with my position all day long. You cannot pretend I don't address the points you raise.
Only those who knew about Biden's corruption would know targeting Shokin was a personal interest. I have no faith that Obama or anyone else would have vetoed Biden even if they knew his personal motivations.
Again, this is the difference between us. I argue based on evidence and logic. You argue based on faith.
At this point it should be obvious to anyone that you're merely attempting to repeat a lie so often that people forget what the truth looks like. Ignored.
Of course you're ignoring it, because it doesn't suit your narrative.
Not only do you have no evidence that any of the articles I listed are lies, you haven't even attempted to argue that any of them are lies. At most you attempted to discredit some of them as mere opinions expressed by people, as if this case is not entirely about opinions of people.
This is just the latest attempt to hand waive away the evidence, it's clearly a specialty of yours.
He was loud and proud, he released the transcript.
He released the transcript after news of the call leaked and democrats started calling for his impeachment. That's not exactly "loud and proud". If he refused that would have only made him look that much more clearly guilty.
He was never on the course of withholding aid.
That's absurd. The aid was withheld effective July 3rd. Trump's call with Zelensky took place on August 5th. News of the story started to leak to the press on August 28th. On September 11th the aid was released.
This is what getting caught looks like.
And remember, Trump's defense for the hold was that he was fighting corruption in Ukraine. So did he win? Did he get what he asked for? No. So why release it? Because he got caught.
What if he didn't feel the powers of the president permitted him to make such threats? What if he didn't want to make threats even if he had the legal right?
He did make the threat, he just didn't do it directly because he knows that if he does the mob like thing he is famous for people like you will carry his water, and her was absolutely right.
If he didn't think he had the power he wouldn't have withheld the aid, but he did. This defense is absurd.
Obama would never have to, he had loyalty within his regime.
Yes, loyal to the constitution. Turns out most government employees tend to take their oaths of office seriously.
I have no interest in meaningless responses to reasserted summaries like this.
I know you don't, because god forbid you address a serious point that demolishes your position; why is it that so many in his administration, including people he hand picked are testifying against him?
Because he's corrupt. Says basic logic.
Or you could just make shit up and blame it on your imaginary "deep state" boogeyman you have absolutely no evidence for.
Not surprisingly, you chose the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Hardly proven
This came from Donald Trump's handpicked ambassador to the EU. A man who donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign.
Coincidences don't matter when tribal interests are at stake, haven't you noticed?
A tongue and cheek response to a serious point. That's what it looks like when you have no rebuttal to offer.
The fact that the one person Trump was interested in going after just so happened to be his top domestic political rival and threat to his reelection is a very strong point. No rational person can deny this.
If true, quite symmetric with the special interest the Obama admin (via Biden and probably just Biden) took in a singular prosecutor in a nation half way around the world.
And that's where the symmetries end. It's conspiracy theory 101 to focus on the similarities and ignore all of the differences that blow your case up.
Biden was not in charge of the administration. He reported to someone else as did everyone else involved in this one particular case. That's crucial, because if Biden was acting in his own personal interests against that of the United States there would be plenty of people who noticed and had no reason to support Biden. There is not a single piece of evidence of that anywhere to this day.
This is also where the articles come in which show that this move was supported by individuals everywhere. Not surprisingly you just hand waive them all away with no evidence of any dissent from those views anywhere.
There is a simple and perfectly valid reason for Biden to become involved - the US was sending aid to Ukraine and needs to know our money was being spent appropriately. If you were funding someone else's activities and they were misusing your contributions, you would stop contributing. That's common sense. Meanwhile the only thing Trump's involvement was allegedly aimed at fixing was holding his top political rival accountable for his actions in another country that have nothing to do with US interests.
These are not the same.
Setting aside the questionable order of events leading to that, is this ambassador a telepath?
No, the ambassador is someone who worked in the administration closely with all of this while it was going on. That means he was in contact with key players who were all carrying out Trump's wishes.
Maybe you've never had a job before or worked in a large organization. It's not difficult to tell what the higher ups want or care about. Leadership matters. At some point it must tire you out making excuses for all of the "rogue" actions of all of the people Trump hired to work for him. At some point you must wonder if Trump was so virtuous why his entire administration was filled with people who are telling the rest of the world how corrupt he was.
[Crickets]
That was your response to the single most damning point against your "Trump was fighting corruption" narrative - Trump's own actions in the wake of getting caught. This one point alone proves the entire case.
If Trump was just fighting corruption, he would have done so loudly and proudly. He would have went through official channels, he would have stayed the course with the withholding of aid, and he would have defended his actions once it gained attention.
Trump did none of that.
He used back channels including his own personal attorney who had no official involvement in the administration (imagine if Obama did that to resolve an international issue).
Once people started to find out the aid was being withheld, he immediately released it (this is what getting caught looks like)
He couldn't even tell Zelensky directly, instead opting to ask in this round about way ("I need you to do us a favor though"). If this were a serious anti corruption effort he would have just said "I need this corruption investigated or you're not getting the money". People who know they are acting within their rights and for the right reasons are not shy about clarifying what they are doing and what they expect.
Hmm, come to think about it, that last part sounds like someone else I know of.
Only an idiot or someone with TDS could look at the full facts and believe that there exists any standard which would allow Biden to act as he did without being a criminal and yet what Trump did in response was criminal.
It is pattenly absurd to look at all of the facts here and see anything else.
With Trump you have nearly everyone is his administration including both of his ambassadors to Ukraine, his ambassador to the EU, his top Russia expert, hell even his own national security advisor telling the world this was corrupt and all about his own personal gain. With Biden you have not one person inside the administration saying anything like that, in fact it's the exact opposite.
Yet Trump was acting honorably and Biden is corrupt. This is the upside down world of MAGA, where of you don't like reality just invent your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
You are talking in circles now. You are trying to assume that the woman suddenly becomes pregnant, against her will, out of nowhere. Literally a stork comes and drops a baby?
I haven't assumed any of that. If you've paid attention to any of what Ive been arguing I take all of that into account. So it is you who is assuming here as you accuse me of it.
This is a really simple question; do you believe it is moral to force a woman to carry out a pregnancy to term against her will? Yes or No?
If you ask me whether I think it is moral to kill a fetus, I can easily answer No. My position already takes that into account so I'm not afraid to answer simple questions. Can you do the same?
We are not talking about forcing women to have babies. We are talking about women not killing their babies.
I never characterized your position as forcing women to "have babies". Why can you not argue honestly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Perhaps, but I'm interested in the part where you think they aren't crimes if the perpetrator is delusional enough.
Corruption is literally defined based on intent.
Now, can you prove that Trump did not believe that investigating Biden was the best move for the United States?
To any reasonable person, yes.
- The ask wasn't for Biden to be investigated, only for Ukraine to announce the investigation.
- Biden just so happened to be his top domestic political rival
- Trump has never shown interest in investigating corruption anywhere else, only in this one case
- His own ambassador said it was a quid pro quo
- He got rid of his former ambassador because she was in the way
- Once the public started to become aware, Trump immediately released the funds to Ukraine and denied he was withholding them (that's what getting caught looks like)
There's more, but this is more than enough. No reasonable person would look at this and conclude anything other than this was an attempt to use the power of his office to help himself personally over the people he supposedly represents. That's the literal definition of corruption.
The fact that any idiot out there can look at all of this, ignore all the facts, ignore Occam's razor, make shit up to fill in the holes, and declare Trump innocent doesn't change reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Hmm. There is no problem in a fetus being identified as a human but people seem to have a problem in accepting a fetus is identified as a human.
We're talking about actual qualities of value and whether those qualities exist in different stages of life. This isn't as black and white conversation, you have to be able to deal with nuance if you wish to have it.
Can I kill you? Can I do things based on rights to intentially kill you? Rhetorical questions because we all know the answer is no. I am open to hearing you out otherwise, but there are no "rights" that supercede or take priority over life.
We're not talking about rights in a vacuum. It's not as simple as "life" vs "bodily autonomy".
No you cannot kill me, because I am not dependant on your body in order to survive.
This is really basic stuff.
Here is a follow up. What is your opinon of a pregnant woman who takes a pill to intentially disform a fetus within her womb? Is that a right of hers or is there some moral obligation/expectation for women to maintain a healthy fetus?
No. Abortion is the necessary result of allowing a woman to have the right to her own body of she does not wish to carry the pregnancy to term. Disforming a fetus had no place in that equation.
Do you agree that this concept for value is subjective?
Of course value is subjective.
Your point is that a fetus does not qualify as a human life, not "in any meaningful way." Thats just air. An attempt at word play.
No, it's the entire point of the conversation.
You don't just get to classify something as human and then claim it is now the same as everything else already classified as human. Different things are different regardless of what definitions they qualify under.
You accuse me if word games when that is all your argument is. You have yet to provide a single word explaining *why* anyone should value a fetus the same as a fully developed person, all you do is call it a human and then pretend the point is made.
Please define and describe "human" in "human life?."
Human is a biological term which is irrelevant to this conversation. What matters is what makes someone a person. This includes self awareness, the ability to think and feel, the ability to make decisions, the ability to retain memories, the ability to plan and act in accordance with ones plans/desires, etc...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I literally asked you what in your opinion defines a person, and you said viability.
No I didn't. I have you a list of qualities which I later linked you too again. Have you forgotten that already or are you just not interested in a good faith discussion?
When I talked about viability it was an add on to the conversation, pointing out that the fetus's inability to survive on its own is the biggest factor in this conversation.
They are most definitely the same. Question:What is the difference between an adult human being, and a fetus, and why do those differences make them any less valuable.
I've already explained the differences in qualities each share. Waiting on you to join the conversation.
It's also perplexing to meet how you ask this question in the context of viability, a completely different pay off the conversation. It's almost like you just didn't want to have to explain the absurd notion that the circumstances of an adult needing medical attention which anyone can give and people are paid to do, and a fetus requiring the mother's womb for 9 months are the same.
The one who put him in the coma should be responsible.
Responsible how? Please explain what that looks like. And also explain how you hold that position through different contexts. What if it were purely an accident? What about self defense?
Is pregnancy a big deal?
Being pregnant and carrying the pregnancy to terms are two different things.
Getting pregnant by itself is not a big deal, although that depends on the individual.
What makes it a big deal is when one does not have the choice as to whether to carry it to terms, which is what you are advocating for. So it's only a big deal because of your position, which you are then using to justify your position. It's just one big circle.
Pregnancy holds a human life.I would say a human life is pretty important.
If you are incapable of thinking in anything but black and white terms, this statement makes sense. Those of us who are able to process nuance see more than just two colors here.
No individual couple is responsible for nor obligated to contribute to the continuation of our species.Yes, they are. That is the whole point of reproduction and sex.
I should have just skipped to this part and ignored everything else, because this is all one needs to know about your position.
You are an authoritarian, plain and simple. You believe you have a right to impose your beliefs onto others and hold others responsible for what you have decided their responsibilities are to the rest of us.
The "point" of sex is whatever the individuals engaging in it want it to be. You don't get to decide that for others.
The very notion of sex having some external purpose strongly implies that your position here is religious based, which adds even more authoritarianism to the equation. Not only do you believe in imposing your beliefs generally onto others, but also your religion.
This is where we are different. I actually believe inn freedom, you just preach it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's what you may have been talking about. I was talking about extortion, selling US foreign policy for personal gain, and money laundering.
Those are all examples of corruption.
If Biden believed this was the best move for the United States, you have no argument.And you honestly believe that was the case? Can you prove it?
I don't have to. You are the one alleging Biden was acting corruptly, so the burden of proof is on you here. That's how it works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The definition of an official's public responsibilities is not to be found in the opinions of a handful of his underlings, a few persons in their circle, and a minority party in a client state.
There is no “definition”, that’s why I didn’t use the term. Your usage of it to try and make it seem like it wasn’t met only demonstrates your inability or refusal to understand the basic concepts involved here.
Again, we’re talking about corruption. Corruption is a crime entirely based on an individuals state of mind. If Biden believed this was the best move for the United States, you have no argument.
The fact that Biden, the intelligence community, other republicans, the EU, and Ukraine all believed the same thing, and there is no evidence of any credible individual or organization believing the opposite, makes your entire case here a non starter. That’s why I keep focusing on this. You still have no answer to it other than pretending I’m saying things I’m not.
Nor does that group constitute "everyone".
When you are focusing on semantic BS like this you know you are losing the argument.
There are biologists who don't believe in evolution. Of course you are always going to find someone who disagrees, so no, I'm not being literal when I say "everyone". That should be obvious. What I do mean is that there is not a single piece of evidence that any credible individual or organization disagreed with the position the administration took, and all of the evidence points in the opposite direction.
If there was any serious dissent in any of those places we would have heard about it. There would have been articles written about it. As far as we can tell, there weren't. Anywhere. That should make you think, but it won't.
it most certainly doesn't mean a UK (picked at random) official has a public duty to blackmail his firing.
It wasn't picked at random. Once again, I presented a dozen articles all written at that time which included his comments.
You continue to demonstrate here why conspiracy theorists are deserving of ridicule. Your entire case here is essentially that we can dismiss every article because it was written by a person, and relied on the opinions/observations of another person. Uh yeah, that's what articles are, and we've relied on them in part to understand reality for centuries.
Whether Shokin should have been fired is entirely a matter of opinion, so of course the articles are going to give you opinions. That isn't a gotcha, it's a demonstration of how woefully you lack the ability to understand the kind of evidence needed to support an argument on either side here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Although you can call sperm a human being, you would lack biological evidence to qualify them as an organism. Instead they are identifed as part of our sex organ.
The issue here is not how the fetus is identified, it’s about what basis you have to claim it should not only be entitled to rights, but rights that supercede the right to the bodily autonomy of its host.
Your argument is again, a game of semantics.
The fertilized egg, however, develops and has qualities to be a human organism. All we need is dna, chromosone count, and ability to develop as is average means to develop.
None of these qualities are why we value other people. These are all things we learned in a lab centuries after we learned to care about others.
Fetus does not qualify as human life?
“An early stage fetus does not in any meaningful way qualify as a “human life”.”
- Post 193
If you’re going to respond to things I say then please respond to the whole thing and not edit out the part that was inconvenient to address.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
So that would mean that we can set a ground rule that human babies are important and that we should not needlessly kill them when they are inconvenient.
That’s your opinion, which I find irrelevant because it’s not your bodily autonomy which is being stripped away. Even if you are a woman, it’s still irrelevant because you have every right to make that choice when it’s your body, not when it’s someone else’s.
You set some parameters which I appreciate, but that still ignores the reality here. Most rapes are not reported, and not all situations are so clearly defined with regards to what exactly the woman consented to. This is just one of the many reasons the government has no business here.
However the over whelming majority of abortions are not the cases above, therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a baby for the sake of them being in the way.
Do you believe it is moral to force a woman to carry out a pregnancy to term against her will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
We all know that the forming human in the womb will become a "baby" human later.
Exactly. And when it does that will go a long way in proving it deserves rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
We recognize their humanity.
If there was an argument before this sentence I certainly did not pick up on it. It seemed to be a few paragraphs about semantics. I’m talking about the qualities that make one a person.
I can call the sperm sitting inside my nuts right now a human, that doesn’t mean it is morally entitled to rights.
Focus on the sentence provided. "abortion stops." There is nothing to "stop" if a human life is not there to stop. Abstenance prevents conception from occuring, does not stop a human life.
An early stage fetus does not in any meaningful way qualify as a “human life”. Your entire argument here is based off of semantics and technicalities.
So in this regard, abstinence is no different. Your point here is that the potential of the fetus to develop grants it rights, but that potential was there before that point. It’s just a question of where you decided to draw the line. Conception is a nice and neat place to do so for the sake of argument, but there is nothing meaningful at this point to point to. It’s just a useful place to make your argument sound legitimate. You only see conception as the irrefutable beginning of life because you are already pro life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Understanding the difference between evidence and retelling is not a claim of manufacture.
The type of evidence needed to support a claim depends entirely on the claim.
If I claimed that I owned my Mercedes, you would ask for a copy of the title.
The evidence needed to prove a politician acted corruptly is to show not only that his actions align with his personal interests, but more importantly, that they were counter productive to his public responsibilities.
This is where the articles come in. What they demonstrate is that everyone within the national and international community as far as we can possibly tell were all in agreement, including the people of the country those actions were in regards to.
Articles in this case absolutely qualify as evidence. They are not a “retelling” of someone else’s story, they are a reporting on what key figures around the world were all saying at the time, and crucially… before the issue would become politicized years later.
If you had articles saying the opposite of what those were then perhaps you’d have a case to dismiss them, but you don’t even have that. You just hand waive them away because they don’t fit your narrative.
So yes you are correct - one needs to consider all of the evidence. You should take your own advice.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So you believe that a zygote is a human being but it's fine for a woman to kill them to prevent more maternal pain? I'm not knocking you if this is the case, but own it.
I have no problem owning my positions. I take issue with being strawmanned and/or mischaracterized.
The word human carries with it a powerful connotation because of how it's normally used. You are relying on that connotation to make your point while using the term in a way that is technically correct but void of any of the qualities that give it said connotation.
In other words, you are being dishonest.
I believe the woman has a right to her own body first and foremost. The fact that a zygote or embryo lacks the basic qualities I described only strengthens that point. None of this means "it's fine" to terminate the fetus. It means one right necessarily has to be deprioritized. Pro lifers believe it's the woman's bodily autonomy, Pro-choicers believe it's the fetus's right to development.
Stop trying to paint people who chose one side offer the other as being for the removal of rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok...............so do you think murder is good?The death penalty (whether it should be banned or not) is an entirely different argument from abortion, so I am not going to argue two arguments at a time.Try to stay on topic.
It was entirely your argument. You tried to justify your position by arguing that abortion is murder to which I pointed out is meaningless. If you didn't want to discuss it you shouldn't have brought it up
WHAT QUALITIES? You never listed any qualities. If you did, please enlighten me.
So, you are basically saying that viability defines a person, that is the ability to survive on their own makes them a valuable human.
No, I'm not. You are conflating two different points; viability and personhood.
Viability is what makes the biggest difference here, in this conversation, because you continually try to use examples of fully developed human beings to argue why it's wrong to terminate a fetus. The circumstances are not the same.
You also fail to address the main point I raised on this. If the man in the coma requires resources to stay alive and there is no one willing to provide those resources, who is responsible for keeping him alive?
You did not refute my argument here.When a mother has sex, she is willing to the possibility of a pregnancy.
I've addressed this argument numerous times, you continue to act as though I never said anything.
Once again, your statement is on its own, meaningless. You have yet to provide a justification apart from asserting the very position you are trying to justify in the first place (aka begging the question).
The fact that she might get pregnant is only a big deal because you assert it's a big deal, but you cannot explain why. That's kind of the whole point you are trying to prove. Without that, there is no reason to regard her decision to engage in sex as punishable, which is the foundation your argument is standing on. So until you can do that your argument stands on nothing.
That is irrelevant to any individual couple since no individual couple is responsible for that.If they decide to have sex, they are.
This is a laughably absurd argument.
No individual couple is responsible for nor obligated to contribute to the continuation of our species.
It never ceases to amaze me how the same people who peach freedom tend to be the same people who want to tell everyone else what is allowed to go on in their own bedrooms and/or what obligations are thrusted upon them - because they said so. How utterly ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I know you are going to try to split hairs on all those adjectives above, but the truth is, you either believe in murdering babies or not.
Zygotes and embryos are not babies.
Pro life advocates love to pretend everything is black and white - that a fetus, even a severely underdeveloped one, is the same as a two year old. That's complete nonsense. This is a complex issue, if you are unwilling to recognize that fact and deal with it appropriately then there is no point in continuing.
The fact is that abortion stops nearly 1M human lives due too an inconvenience.
So does abstenance.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How is that not advancing the bodily autonomy argument?
The bodily autonomy argument is about justifying why a women should be entitled to an abortion. My story/example explains why your premise that liberals don't care about zygotes and embryos is nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Imagine that the assertions of columnists and newspaper writers don't constitute evidence or anything other than the opinion of someone who has gained access to a means of publication.
Columnists and newspapers have been the primary source of information we as a country along with the rest of the world have relied upon for over 200 years. They aren't as your absurd caricature describes, merely opinions of it's authors. They detail where their information comes from including from experts on the ground, public officials, key witnesses, etc.
To pretend that over a dozen credible sources all pointing in the same direction while no credible source at the time pointed in a different direction is not evidence is just plain stupid. You talk about taking in all the information but you hand waive away any information which does not fit your narrative. Any conspiracy theory can be justified with that approach.
What is a coorelated probability? It's a probability derived from several other related probabilities
Probabilities can only be derived with the information one has. That's the problem with conspiratorial thinking. When you begin with the premise that the evidence is all manufactured, you have granted yourself the ability to decide what goes into you're equation. You are no longer following the evidence, you are leading it.
Example: imagine someone shows you over a dozen articles all supporting the contention and without any logic or evidence claim it's all nonsense.
I had a conspiracy theory, I evaluated relative probabilities, and found it to be the best explanation. I was right.
The pipeline you are referring to is still a very much disputed claim. Regardless, it's not exactly a stretch to claim the US would strike against a pipeline of a foreign advasary while that pipeline is essentially helping to fund a genocide. Not sure why you think you're premature victory lap lends you some kind of credibility.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your main argument for abortion being legal is the bodily autonomy argument. This is a seperate argument.You believe a zygote is a human (I think), so you would want to reduce the abortion rate by alternative means.But if you don't believe a zygote is a human being, you woudn't then care about the abortion rate.
I wasn't advancing the bodily autonomy argument, I was using the reality of bodily autonomy to illustrate how someone who values a zygote could still support abortion.
You are the one who started off with the presumption that pro choice advocates don't think zygotes or embryos are human. I'm showing you why that presumption is false or at the very least unnecessary.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
Why is it that with any debate regarding abortion does nobody ever recognize the fact HOW the baby got there in the first place?
If you bothered to follow the thread, you would recognize that the point you are raising is not the point I was responding to.
If you'd like to read my views on that part of the debate you are welcome to view and reply to the below thread, starting with this post (please read all of my posts that followed if you decide to reply):
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's just off the top of my head. If you don't see it, you're not looking. If you say "just a conspiracy theory" to every data point, how would you ever detect a conspiracy?
By applying Occam's razor.
For example, suppose you have a politician who is accused of abusing his power to advance his own personal interests. But you have a dozen articles published by entirely different institutions local, national, and international, all showing that the actions of this politician aligned with the interests of his office as well as his diplomatic allies. At this point, Occam's razor clearly points to the conclusion that this politician acted appropriately because no assumptions are needed to explain it.
Now imagine someone comes along and claims without any evidence whatsoever that all of the articles were written by corrupt, ignorant, or even stupid authors, all in the pocket of this politician. Well, that's a pretty damn big assumption and therefore fails the test.
This is basic logic and critical thinking.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Me: If you believe that zygotes aren't people, why would you care what the abortion rate of zygotes is?
If you stop thinking about this in purely black and white terms it's not difficult to understand.
Arguing that a zygote is not a person does not = arguing that a zygote is worthless
When my wife first told me she was pregnant I was instantly filled with shock and joy. I hugged her and I kissed her belly now knowing that my future child whom I couldn't wait to help her bring into the world was in there. Suddenly nothing on earth mattered more than that.
If she told me she's wasn't ready and was unwilling to go through this I would have argued with her and I would have begged and pleaded with her to reconsider. But in the end, I would have accepted it. It wasn't my body whose organs were about to be pushed to the side and rearranged to make room for another person. It wasn't my hormones that were about to go haywire. It wasn't my back and hips that were about to be abused to the point of possible permanent damage. And it wasn't my life that was about to be risked to go through all of this.
So as sad as I would have been, I would have understood and supported her decision 100%, and I would have faught back tooth and nail against anyone telling her she didn't have the right to make that choice for herself.
That's what it means to be pro choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, the politicians that we the people voted for.
Yes, that's what government is. Is there a point here that you think you're refuting?
Murder, is:"The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:"Capital punishment is not unlawful and is held up to the law's standards.
Then your argument that abortion is murder is entirely circular.
We're talking about what the law should be, so if your argument here is that it's against the law you aren't saying anything.
Ok, well let's say that the doctors say that the man will definitely wake up in about 9 months, but without any memory of his life whatsoever. Is it then ok to kill him?
No. First off and as I already pointed out, the man already has the qualities I listed, they're just laying dormant. Second, there's no conflict which ending his life will resolve. He isn't growing in someone else's womb.
If qualities define a human, then what quality's do born humans have that unborn humans don't have that makes them human, and why do those qualities make them human.
We're talking about what qualities make someone a person, not a human.
The biggest single quality that differentiates a fetus from a person is the capability of surviving without the connection to another person's womb.
Yes, but he is relying on a human medical staff to keep him alive, and also either his own or others time and money to keep him alive.
And they are all willing to continue keeping him alive. If no one wanted to expend their time, energy, and money to keep him alive, there would be no moral force which could require others to do so. That would result in the removal of others rights thereby conflicting with the man's right to live.
Tell that to:
- Sen. Martha McSally
- Sen. Kelly Loeffler
- Sen. Joni Ernst
- Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith
- Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
- Former Rep. Cynthia Lummis
- Lila Rose
- Marjorie Dannenfelser
- Charmaine Yoest
- Penny Nance
- Kristan Hawkins
And many other famous women spoke persons who are pro-life.
Do you really think listing a few individuals who disagree with the overwhelming majority of women proves a point?
Things about sex that is a big deal:Creates human life.Is the only way we can reproduce.Creates emotional bonds between men and women.Also, you are the one making the argument circular when you just repeat things rather than refute them.
You haven't made an argument to refute. That's the nature of circular argumentation.
The fact that sex creates human life makes it a big deal in the sense that we as a species need it to continue our survival. That is irrelevant to any individual couple since no individual couple is responsible for that.
Your reproduction point is the same point repeated in different words.
The emotional bond created by sex differs between sexual partners and is up to each individual to determine what it means to them. This is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
So once again, you continue to assert that sex is a big deal without any justification as to why any other individual should adopt your personal opinion.
You then use your unsupported personal opinion to justify why others carry a burden on their shoulders to act in accordance with it.
You then rely on your made up burden to justify removal of others rights when they do not act in accordance with your personal opinion.
You then argue that the potential removal of one's rights gives reason for all to view sex as a big deal.
And now we're back at the beginning.
It's all purely made up and then passed on as an intellectual argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Inflation is solely caused by the federal reserve
The federal reserve has tools to combat inflation that may or not be enough depending on the depth of the issue. Nothing in their arsenal was sufficient to combat global inflation brought on by a global pandemic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I want a president that is going to reduce the debt and grow the stock market at least 10% a year. I don't care their party.
First off, this is a correlation/causation fallacy. You are judging presidents based on the era they happened to preside over while failing to take into account that the circumstances they inherited couldn't have been more different.
Trump took over an economy that had been growing for 7 straight years with no sign of slowing down in sight. Joe Biden took over an economy that was in completed disarray caused by a global pandemic which resulted in global inflation including a drastic global rise in gas prices. We can debate Biden's handling of it but you cannot pretend that the circumstances (and thus expectations) are at all comparable.
Also, your premise is just wrong. Trump grew the national debt more than any president before him, even before COVID. His only signature piece of legislation was to give tax breaks to the rich which added $2T to the debt with not even an attempt to offset it. In his 4 years in office he never talked seriously about nor showed any hint of concern whatsoever about the debt, in fact quite the opposite. Reducing the debt requires either raising taxes or cutting spending. Trump's position was to lower taxes and raise spending. You can't get any more pro debt than that.
But back to my original question and point, I ask about January 6th to understand your mindset. Essentially, you just don't think it matters whether a president cares about preserving the American experiment. I'm really not sure how you justify the position that the debt and/or stock market should be the priority when we're talking talking about putting a man in charge that has demonstrated complete and utter contempt for everything that brought this country to the point where the debt and stock market are important in the first place, and has shown that if given a second chance will destroy it all. I really don't see a point in continuing without first addressing this in detail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
they were under the command of federal sleeper agents censoring people.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the FBI pressured or coerced Twitter in any way. Twitter is a private company, free to grant the FBI's requests or not. Twitter chose to grant them. That's not a violation of the first amendment, it's an expression of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Shouldn't conservatives live up to some standard? I don't think the members of either party adhere to any sort of ethos 100% of the time (except for libertarians and westernites). But I digress.
Hypocrisy is not about failing to live up to someone else's defined ethos, it's about living up to the ethos you profess.
My comment here wasn't that those who profess to be conservative actually are, it's that what I described is how conservatism is defined and broadly describes the political right. Let's not get wrapped up in black and white fallacies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL!!!!!!!
Show me one valid point advanced by the Twitter files. Just. One.
I'll wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WeaverofFate
The fact that the debate title distinguishes between micro and macro evolution is already a major red flag. Anyone who understands anything about evolution knows full well it's a nonsense distinction.
The only difference between the two is time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s honestly a simple question. Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Are you really that simple minded to think the answer to "are you better off pre pandemic or post pandemic?" is a good question to gauge whether one should vote any particular individual into office?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you like Trump, try to convince me to vote for him.If you don’t like Trump, try to convince me to not vote for him.
Everyone is different so just to get a sense of where you sit let me ask you this... Can you please explain how January 6th does not immediately disqualify Trump from your consideration?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A county court in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on Sept. 6, 2022, became the first in more than 150 years to disqualify a person from public office because they participated in an insurrection.District Court Judge Francis Mathew found that Couy Griffin, a former county commissioner and founder of the group Cowboys for Trump, had participated in the violent U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. Mathew invoked a nearly forgotten part of the 14th Amendment, called Section 3, which can disqualify certain people from state or federal office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to the United States’ enemies.
Let me guess, this is your example of progressives trying to silence their political opposition?
I'm not about to write another long response that you will no doubt ignore or strawman 99% of, so perhaps instead I'll just ask... Please explain what your point is and explain why you think this example makes it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This seems like obvious satire to make fun of the last 4 years of the Democrat party's obvious collusion with big tech to censor opposing thought.
Quite a few points here.
Let's start by simply taking Florida Republican's word that this was meant for nothing more than to 'showcase the absurdity of the left'. That in and of itself is a pretty stunning admission of just how unserious they are about governing. Their defense in this case is literally that they are drafting and submitting legislation for no other purpose than to "own the libs". Do they seriously have nothing better to do? You would think after all of that complaining about gas prices, inflation, deficits, etc. That they would have real, actual work to do.
I don't of course take their word seriously, because it's just plain stupid. Everyone who knows anything about politics knows that the Democratic party of the 1860's was the conservative party of those days and the republicans were the liberal party, they have since switched sides so the republicans of today are far more aligned with the democrats they are pretending this is about. Political parties are not people, they're entities. The people running them are a completely different group and the values pushed by it have evolved to the point of unrecognizability. To argue that this has any relevance to cancel culture only demonstrates what a moron the person making that argument is.
Third, Florida Republican's complaining about cancel culture is beyond hypocritical given what they just did to Disney. And that's just one example. We can talk about M&M's, Colin Kaepernick, every politician that's ever said a bad thing about Donald Trump... Republicans love cancel culture every bit as much as those they accuse of spearheading it.
Fourth, where are the condemnations of this? Where are those voices out there assuring the people that they don't actually plan to outlaw the Democratic party? Maybe I'm missing them. If you can find them please forward.
Fifth, your whole argument about big tech and censoring thought is just absurd and the Twitter files is a complete joke. This topic needs a whole other thread which I'm sure someone already started.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Democrat party has objectively become more status quo than the Republican party at this point. Biden's Administration the last 2 years was a glorious exercise of more of the same. Deficit spending. Endless proxy wars for oil. Corporate censorship. Empty promises to the working class while lobbies are granted increasing corporate subsidies in the name of "infrastructure spending."
Agreed, the Democratic party has resorted to the status quo of using their political power to govern the country. That's quite different from today's republicans.
The only thing "progressive" outside of the normal status quo is the far left campaign to eliminate political opposition.
They're literally trying to pass a bill in Florida outlawing the Democratic party.
The last "right wing" president tried to overthrow the election process because he lost culminating in an attack on the US Capitol which no one on the right cares to hold him accountable for.
Multiple republican states are trying to figure out how to throw out the votes in their states and pick their own electors instead.
The non-Trump frontrunner for the republican party in 2024 has punished Disney for speaking out against him and arrested people for voting in line with the referendum his state's voters chose.
But tell me more about the progressive push to eliminate political position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Define conservative differently
I'm not the one defining it, that's what it means.
averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values. - Google
Whether self professed conservatives live up to the definition is an entirely different question.
The solution would be to encourage minorities to build up their own wealth.
I was explaining why white supremecy is a right wing thing, not why minorities don't own more wealth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Only white people tend to believe that white supremacy is a right wing thing.
What?
What people of color, aside from the tiny sliver of them who are MAGA, don't believe this?
Even the FBI recognizes that there's no denying it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So not all republicans are white supremests, but pretty much all white supremests are republicans.
It is at it's core, quite simple; republicans are the conservative party.
Conservatism is about conserving the status quo.
The status quo in America is that white people own nearly everything and maintain the power.
The idea that we should conserve everything as it is, is based almost entirely on fear, so those who are fearful of change, fearful of the other, fearful of losing their livelihood... Tend to gravitate towards conservatism.
People for whom fear is their primary motivator are easier to manipulate by scapegoating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, letting the government decide would mean that we the people wouldn't get to vote on it.
We don't get to vote on it. The politicians in government, which is what the government is, are passing these laws restricting abortion. That's called... The government deciding.
There is hardly a single state anywhere in the country where a referendum would result in abortion being banned. Even Kentucky supported a women's right to choose overwhelmingly.
I think you mean is murder capital punishment
No, I meant what I said. Is capitol punishment, as in execution by the state... according to your definition... murder? It's a very simple question.
If no, why not?
What about a man in a coma?
A man in a coma has all of the qualities I listed. The difference is that those qualities are laying dormant, it's no different than when we're asleep.
If the prognosis on the man is that he will never wake up, then he is regarded as a vegetable and his life can be legally ended at any time.
And let's not forget the biggest difference here... the man in a coma is not relying on anyone else's body to remain alive.
You think of this as women just being quiet, and the men are doing all of the decision making, but you don't point out all of the women who are pro-life.
Because women are overwhelmingly pro choice. The only reason there is any serious discussion in this country over whether abortion should be legal is because of men.
The consequences of women engaging in sex, is that there is a possibility that she might get pregnant, which might be a good or a bad thing for that specific woman. So, women should be vigilant when having sex, because of that possibility.I'm not saying that women should know better, I am saying that women should be smart when having sex, because sex is a bigger deal than most people make it out to be.
No, you're making it out to be a big deal, because you are imposing on others that they must carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
There is nothing else about sex that is a big deal in any way that is not entirely subjective, hence why this whole conversation about responsibility is circular. You make it out to be a big deal and then justify harsh impositions on others because of their lack of regard for the big deal you made it out to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Again, your position is that the government gets to decide, so bear in mind that everything you type from this point on is to affirm why you believe that.Not my position whatsoever.My position is that abortion is wrong, and as the people we should vote on the government enforcing that law.
This is literally what it means to say the government gets to decide.
Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:"That defines abortion. It doesn't have to involve malice, only a premeditated killing.
Is capitol punishment murder? Yes or No?
What does it mean to have personhood?
It's a collection of a number of qualities that separate us from plants. The ability to think, feel emotions, create and hold memories, form relationships, develop habits/routines, have desires, create goals for oneself, etc.
A fetus is a living human by definition.
If you want to claim a fetus should be regarded as a fully formed human being with all of the same rights you need to provide an argument. You don't get to define your position as the correct one.
When creating laws, it's we the people, not we the women.
Yes, we the people getting to decide what happens inside the women's uterus.
Somehow I suspect you would feel differently if you were a women watching two men argue over what they get to do with their own body.
This is why I promote that you should not have children out of wedlock so that men will be forced to suffer the consequences as well.
So you do not promote having children out of wedlock and you do not support having sex without the intent to conceive.
In other words, no one in our society should ever have sex except for married people.
You have a right to that position, but be clear that this is your position when arguing against abortion because all of this is necessarily tied together.
I am also curious to know whether you actually intend to live up to the standards you set for everyone else.
I am not defending the manipulative men for doing these things at all, I am simply saying that women need to be more aware of these things because the consequences of sex hurt women way more then it hurts men.
The consequences you are imposing on them.
Your argument here is entirely circular. The consequences of women engaging in sex is justifiably dire because women should know better, women should know better because the consequences are dire.
You need to justify the consequences to make any of this make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The government's job is to uphold the law. And one of the aspects of the law, is that murder is illegal.
This is question begging. We're talking about what the law should be.
Again, your position is that the government gets to decide, so bear in mind that everything you type from this point on is to affirm why you believe that.
Abortion is literally murder (look at the Abortion is Murder debate on my profile) so that should make it illegal.
Murder by definition involves malice. That's not what were talking about.
We're talking about whether a women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. In order to argue that a women should not have this right you seem to be arguing that a fetus is a person or at least should be regarded as one. But a fetus, particularly in it's earliest stages does not hold any of the characteristics we associate with personhood, so you have no basis to argue this except for telling us how you feel about it. That is useless in a conversation about the law.
Everyone will feel differently about this question, that is again, why it should be up to the women and not the government.
That is why, when a man and a woman are both consenting to sex, they are also consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant.So if you get pregnant that is no one else's fault but yours. Therefore you don't get to kill the child inside the womb that has done nothing wrong, just because you screwed up.
Who's you? Because last time I checked it takes two to create a baby, yet it's the women's body only that will have to be subjected to the consequences.
Regardless, we are again at the point where you are asserting that the women's "screw up" is a valid reason to deny her a right to her own body. And you justify this right by asserting that a fetus is a person, which it's not.
That's what this debate really comes down to, we can argue about the rest all day long but in the end that will be pointless. Because you see a fetus as a person, you believe having sex is a punishable act. It's really that simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok, well let me ask you this:How did the woman get pregnant?If she chose to have sex with another man without protection, then she is consenting to unprotected sex, and she knows the consequences.
First of all, using protection is not a guarantee of anything. Condoms break, and birth control is not always effective. There is only one 100% effective prevantative and that's abstenance.
The problem with your argument here is that it is predacated on the idea that a women somehow deserves to be forced into carrying the child because she had the audacity to have sex, but the drive to have sex is literally programmed into all of us so your solution of abstenance fundamentally goes against human nature.
And then you have rape and incest, not to mention psychological manipulation which makes many women feel forced into things they would rather not do. Plus the fact that it's the man who has complete and total control over what happens, yet it's the women who has to bear the consequences of "mistiming".
So the bottom line here is that there are a lot of factors involved, all of which are extemely personal so it's not the government's business. At the end of the day it's the women's body we are arguing over, so it's the women, not the government who should decide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Your logic, which ignores all nuance about what individuals believe about what God endorses and condemns, would assert that Cuomo a hypocrite, since God hates divorce and Cuomo got one. By association, the Democrats would be a party of hypocrites, since they have individuals who believe their party is the party of God but are getting divorces.
Whether Chris Cuomo is a hypocrite is irrelevant to this thread, as is the assertion that any individual democrat is a hypocrite. This isn't about individuals, it's about political party ideology.
If Chris Cuomo were branding himself to be anti-divorce, and then asking people to vote for him because of that position, that would make him a hypocrite.
Like GP said, of you're asserting to be the party against divorce, then you're also asserting the opposing party is for it. If that's what you're telling your base while your own side does it all the time then you are a liar and a hypocrite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
By reducing one party to be UNIQUELY, the party of marriage, you are by default claiming the other party is the party of DIVORCE.
He's not the one doing it, that's his whole point.
If you believe this and recognize it's stupidity then welcome to the group who believes it's stupid when republicans claim to be the party of family values.
I guess we can end this thread now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I'm not talking about bodily autonomy right now
Then you are missing the entire point. The pro choice stance is not that killing a fetus is moral, no serious person would claim that. There is no controversy around this as is evidenced by the fact that you can be charged for double homicide by killing a pregnant women which is nearly unanimously agreed upon within our society.
The pro choice position recognizes that there are two fundamental rights in direct conflict here, so the only question is which right wins out. As in any other case where this happens, when one right intrudes upon another the intruding right loses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let's say a dude gets into a car crash and gets into a coma. The doctors know for sure that the man will wake up in approximately 9 months but won't retain any memories of his past. But he is in a coma, so he is not viable on his own, so he must be hooked to machines for that 9 months in order to stay alive.The question is:Would it be morally acceptable to kill this man?
Machines do not have bodily autonomy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In any case, arguing that rail companies should get a break the last 2 years from both the Biden administration and the striking rail workers just because New York needs its PVC instead of a recession at the cost of Ohio is one hell of an immoral thing to suggest.
Ok, this is just plain stupid. I'm not sure why I bother typing words since you are only going to reply to your imaginary friend. You two can enjoy your conversation.
Created: