Total posts: 5,890
-->
@TWS1405_2
That’s like saying your BF asked you to drive him to the bank for a transaction, decided to fulfill their request and drive them to the bank. They ask you to wait with the car running while they run inside. They go inside and come running out with three large bags. Gets in your car and they yell “DRIVE!” Guess what, you just committing a felony.
No, it’s not like that, at all.
In the case of the Twitter files, the government flagged posts for Twitter as possible foreign disinformation. Twitter decided to remove the posts.
So let’s simplify:
G = the government
T = Twitter
X = removal of posts flagged as possible foreign disinformation
Simplified:
G asked T to perform X, T decided to comply.
Now let’s break down your analogy
G = the “BF”
T = you
X = drive him to the bank for a transaction
Simplified:
G asked T to perform X, T decided to comply… and then G decided to rob a bank
Do you see the difference between these two analogies?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Translation: those private companies conspired with the government to violate Americans freedom of speech
To “conspire” is to work with someone else to break the law. A private company deciding to fulfill the government’s request is not breaking the law.
It’s also not a violation of speech by definition because the government wasn’t the entity who made that decision.
Getting kicked off of Twitter is not a violation of anyone’s free speech regardless. Once again, the first amendment does not grant anyone a right to a platform.
It also matters what the intent was here which was to combat foreign misinformation as part of an attempt to influence US elections. This isn’t just permittable, it’s common sense given what happened in the previous election.
It’s also noteworthy that all of this happened in the run up to the election. In other words it was Trump’s government that allegedly did this. So your argument appears to be that Trump’s own government conspired with Twitter for the purpose of silencing Trump supporters. That’s ridiculous.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Even Saint Mueller found nothing. But guess what? It turns out a dude who was investigating Trump for Russian collusion, was in bed with Putin.
Which would certainly explain why Mueller wasn’t able to find any collusion with Russia…
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
They literally were so scared of trump they waited until he was out of office to invade.
Trump spent 4 years fawning over Putin and when on the world stage with him took Putin’s word over that of his own intelligence agencies. To claim Putin was scared of Trump is beyond absurd.
Putin was going to invade regardless, but he was waiting till after the election because he was hedging his bet on Trump winning re-election and pulling the US out of NATO which would have created a much more favorable environment for him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes. As long as you claim something as well. I claim stuff as well, as provide evidence.
You didn’t make a claim here, and more importantly the link you shared wasn’t to evidence of anything, it was an hour long argument made by someone else because you apparently couldn’t be bothered to make your own. That’s fine, you don’t have to. But if you aren’t going to make your own argument then I have no obligation to take your point seriously.
You do know, that saying "Don't ever again argue that there's a problem of free speech" is telling someone not to say something............just sayin.
Well I’m not the government, so it’s ok.
It was an obvious colloquialism, you can of course argue whatever you want, but to support telling teachers that they’re essentially not allowed to talk to their students about race while purporting to be all about free speech is breathtakingly hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Thats on you then. I watch and read all information given to me for evidence and it helps with an argument.
So if I post an hour long video for you despite not even bothering to type any words to explain what it is I’m trying to argue, you’re just going to watch the whole thing without question?
If you have that much time in your hands and decide that the best way to spend it is to sit around watching what someone else tells you to watch… that’s on you. I came here for a dialog with people who might have something to offer, if I wanted to sit around watching YouTube videos I’d be on YouTube.
Again, just because it is not in the curriculum, doesn't mean that it isn't being taught to kids, who are very impressionable.
Words and phrases have actual meaning.
CRT has an actual meaning.
“Subject X is being taught in schools” has an actual meaning.
When you assert something, but the something you are ultimately talking about does not add up to the meaning of the phrase you used to convey your original assertion, that’s being intellectually dishonest.
If it’s not in the curriculum, it’s not “being taught in schools”.
What you are talking about is a subject that often comes up in classrooms (because quite literally everyone in the country is taking about this) and the teachers share their opinions. But because you don’t like their opinions, you have decided to advocate for a world where educators are now barred from sharing their opinions.
That isn’t just pathetic on its own, it’s the complete opposite of what you pretend to believe with regards to free speech.
Don’t ever again argue that there’s a problem of free speech in America, because you and people just like you are its biggest offender.
Yes.......I did........because you brought up politics.......
Once again, critical thinking and media literacy are not political subjects. If you do not understand that then you are not being serious.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You are free to consider that an issue and argue against it as such, but it is objectively, not a violation of free speech. Twitter made a conscious and explicit decision to do “whatever” the intelligence agencies said. As misguided as you might believe that is, it is their right to hold an opposing worldview to your own and to follow it however they saw fit (within the law of course).
The problem here is that these companies like Twitter and Facebook have grown way too large and have way too much influence over the national dialog. That’s certainly an issue, but that is not a problem of speech, it’s a problem of concentrated power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Fine, let's destroy your argument then. I wanted to leave you with some type of win, but oh well:
If you want to destroy my argument you’re going to need to type some words. That’s how productive conversation works.
Just to humor you I clicked on the link, it’s a 55 min Ben Shapiro show segment. I watched the first 1:27 before I already got to the first nonsense point and turned it off. The argument he presents is a Lawrence O’Donnell clip where Lawrence says something and then corrects it the next day.
This doesn’t prove your point, if anything it shows the exact opposite. Lawrence was just talking off the cuff and in so doing said something that he later explained ‘didn’t go through the networks vigorous fact checking process’. In other words, MSNBC does not stand by his statement because Lawrence didn’t prove to the network that what he said is factual. That’s not how a propaganda outlet intent on spreading misinformation operates.
This is a tired old tactic. News networks like MSNBC operate 24/7. Of course they are going to get things wrong from time to time, every human being on earth does. If you want to argue that a network is “spreading misinformation” you need to provide examples of where they did so knowingly or provide reliable data. I’m willing to bet Ben Shapiro knows this, but he also understands that people like you are easily manipulable so you’ll just buy into his shotgun fallacy hook line and sinker.
I could of course be wrong, maybe he did go on to explain all of this. Don’t know, don’t care enough to watch the next 53 minutes. If Ben were here to discuss the issue with I’d watch it, but he isn’t here. You are. So if you want to have a conversation on this topic feel free to present words that you typed so we can have a dialog.
Yes. Books that come from where? Oh that's right, the government.
The government doesn’t publish books, and much of the literature on the subject is centuries old.
Hate to break it to you, but:
So the argument here is that the basic concepts CRT is founded on are “being taught” in class, and they gathered data on this by asking students of they’ve heard this concept and from where.
First off, no where in this article do they find that the material students are “being taught” is part of any curriculum anywhere. That’s already remarkable, because to claim a subject is being taught in schools requires that at bare minimum.
Essentially, if a teacher tells the class their opinion on any of these questions, that would qualify as “being taught”. But what is most remarkable about this entire study is that it took place from August 18th-23rd 2022. In other words, they asked students if they heard about or had teachers tell them their opinion about an issue which republicans catapulted to the forefront of the national dialog. An issue that is literally vilifying teachers nationwide.
Teachers and students are going to talk about what’s going on in the world. In 2022 CRT was everywhere, so of course teachers are going to comment on it. That doesn’t mean CRT is “being taught” in classrooms.
So when you advocate for banning CRT in classrooms, a subject that isn’t in any curriculum anywhere, what you’re actually advocating for is for teachers to not be allowed to talk about race. That is amazingly stupid and remarkably hypocritical coming from the “free speech” crowd.
The fact that you heard me talk about these two subjects and immediately heard “politics” is a perfect demonstration of the point I just made.But you did bring up politics........
I brought up two subjects and how those two subjects would likely impact politics. You then characterized them as political subjects.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Thank you for further validating my point.
Late take a look at your first article claiming the Twitter files show the government violating free speech:
“And not just one agency. Really every conceivable wing of the enforcement agencies of the U.S. government were in some way or another sending moderation requests to Twitter, and in many cases those requests were being fulfilled."
If this is how the person who published these files is characterizing the argument, you’ve already lost it. Requesting that Twitter remove files and Twitter agreeing to remove those files is in no way a violation of free speech. Twitter is a private company free to decide for themselves whether they want to remove content or not. And that means if they decide to work with the government and remove content the government flags then that is their free speech right, and that is exactly what they did according to your own source:
“They had an internal guidance, which I think is very significant, where they said publicly, we will only remove content at our sole discretion. Privately, we will remove any content that's identified by the United States intelligence community as a foreign state actor conducting cyber operations, so if the intel community says we should take it down, we're going to take it down."
That’s their choice because that’s their free speech right to decide how to handle government requests.
But your sources only get better. This is from your second link:
“The big disappointment of the Twitter Files is that their authors seem uninterested in alternate points of view. Across thirteen installments so far, I could not find a single instance in which the reporters tracked down named Twitter officials and asked them for an explanation.”
Exactly, which is why the Twitter files are such a joke. That’s what tends to happen when you care more about making a political splash than you do about painting an accurate picture of reality.
But my favorite gem out of your trove came from your last source:
“The Biden administration and others casually dismiss this troubling arrangement as a rationale to somehow prevent election "misinformation." Yet misinformation is in the eye of the beholder.”
Wow, that’s right up there with “alternative facts” and “Truth isn’t truth”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Sure they aren't nude, but pulling back your underwear to show your buthole to kids, is pretty close. Also saying you’re giving the kids a snack, and lifting your breasts is also pedophilia.
Do you have any evidence that this kind of behavior is anything remotely prevalent at drag shows? Or did you just find one clip on YouTube of one drag queen engaging is such behavior and decided that you had all you needed to vilify the entire community?
Not all drag queens. Some drag queens are against pedophilia to kids, and call it out. But the ones in these videos are the pedophiles.
If I provided you a list of people who dressed up as Santa Clause who were later found to be pedophiles would you support banning all children from sitting on Santa Clause’s lap everywhere? Would you actively speak out against the entire industry as if it were built on pedophilia?
The whole point of a drag show is to sexualize.
Have you ever been to a drag show? Do you know anything about drag that you didn’t learn on Fox News or from some angry pastors rant at church?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Really?? You really think Republicans are the ones who pose a bigger threat to misinformation.I thought you were just misinformed, not cut off from everything.
I gave you a specific example and left the door wide open to continue this discussion in greater detail. But if “Really???” is all you have to offer in response you really need to think about whether I’m really the one who is being manipulated.
No, it should be taught in school, far before most people develop an interest in politics with the hope that they use the lessons they learn to guide them as they decide what they stand for.It should, but where are the teachers getting there information?
From books. It goes back to this thing we call the enlightenment. Please google it if you are unfamiliar.
Who is the one promoting critical race theory in grade school?
No one, it’s not being taught in grade schools anywhere. This is a made up issue concocted entirely within the minds of paranoid right wingers.
Politics shouldn't be taught in school. Learning the basic things, like Math, Science, English and all the core learning skills should be taught in grade school. Political bias should not be in school.
That’s the entire point of critical thinking and media literacy - to teach one to decipher through the political spin.
The fact that you heard me talk about these two subjects and immediately heard “politics” is a perfect demonstration of the point I just made.
If all you really care about is preserving your cherished beliefs then anything which challenges it will immediately be labeled as political and vilified as such. Reality be dammed.
It's not nonsense. Have any proof that it is? No, your only proof is that some angry people said it was, and we are supposed to believe them.How are you this misinformed?
The projection is quite remarkable.
If all you understand is how to listen to others then I can understand how difficult it must be to imagine someone being able to listen to multiple points of views and reach their own conclusions, including when one of those points of views is clearly built on manipulative tactics.
I already kick started that conversation with the Tucker Carlson example. You’re welcomed to engage in it if you actually want to discuss it as opposed to just hurling projectiles of self perceived superiority.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This is not the point of this forem. I'm not debating proof for God. I am debating what Christianity means and is.
Understood, but you are on this site debating the existence of God regularly, so you cannot escape the self defeating nature of the position you are asserting.
You do not have to abide by the laws of logic, there are plenty of people who choose to move through life believing whatever feels good to them with no regard for what is actually true. But the moment you embrace a position that necessarily contradicts logic you can expect that you will no longer be taken seriously by anyone interested in a rational dialog.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God is not defined by logic. He created logic, but he is not imprisoned by it.
The entire point of debating your position is to demonstrate that your beliefs can withstand rational scrutiny.
Belief in a being, or in anything that is not bound by the laws of logic make such belief irrational by definition and as such should be dismissed out of hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@YouFound_Lxam
I did see this video where an 8 year old was told to fondle a drag show person’s crotch and they did so not knowing what they were doing.
I saw a video once of a Santa clause getting a hard on while a 5 year old sat on his lap. Yet I’m pretty sure you would dismiss that outright as a one off and not representative of what Santa Clauses are all about.
Why then, do you fail to recognize the same with regards to drag?
The drag queens showing there naked bodys on stage to children is illegal.
That’s not what a drag show is
Pedophilia, and sexual abuse are different things. These guys are pedophiles.
Please provide the data which shows that drag queens are pedophiles. Somehow I suspect you have none.
It’s like exposing little kids to live porn shows. It is not ok. Anyone who says that it is is demented, and a pedophile themselves.
Or, it could be that the person making such characterizations has no idea what drag is and is instead just interpreting them through their own bigotry colored glasses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Freedom and personal responsibility isn't for everyone. The vast majority cant comprehend or handle it. Thus they vote for dictatorial tyrants to lead them thru life by the nose. The thought of suffering consequences for poor life decisions and actually having to pay for and suffer because of those poor choices just doesn't register in most peoples brains. They are all just victims and need a mommy govt to bail them out of everything. Entitlement and tyranny go hand in hand.
You tagged me with the above but your post was clearly meant for someone else since nothing you said had anything to do with the media and/or media literacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Your right. Let me rephrase. Mainstream media is producing misinformation.
And how did you reach that conclusion? Because Fox News said so?
And when CNN "accidentally cuts out" every time Christianity is brought up.There is bias on both sides. That is what I am calling out.AGAIN, I am calling out BOTH sides of the political isle. Mostly the Democrats, but Republicans too.
Every time, or one time that you are aware of? Either way I’m sure you aren’t seriously comparing a segment which cut off, for which there are multiple possible explanations far simpler than some concerted effort to shy away from talking about Christianity - an explanation that itself makes no sense, to the example of Tucker Carlson - a guy whose own lawyers argued cannot be believed, using basic logical fallacies on a nightly basis to spread obvious propaganda.
And this is the number one program on all of cable news.
No, the two sides are not remotely the same, and it’s not the democrats who pose the bigger problem.
And whos gonna teach you that?The media?
No, it should be taught in school, far before most people develop an interest in politics with the hope that they use the lessons they learn to guide them as they decide what they stand for.
It would never happen though, if any significant number of schools across the country started teaching this I guarantee the political right would start calling it indoctrination of their children and freak out just like they did over CRT. Because nearly anyone with a solid understanding of critical thinking and media literacy would be able to easily tell that right wing media is nothing but nonsense propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Media seems to have a pro establishment bias. Which ultimately is a left wing bias as the democrats want to increase the size and scope of the establishment.
Establishment… as in whatever has been established.
Yes, I agree. What we as a society have been able to establish over the past few centuries and decades does tend to tilt leftward, because that’s how reason, logic and common sense tend to tilt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Why don't you guys understand when we say the media?The media means information that is meant to inform the public about things.
I’m explaining to you what the media actually is.
Again, it’s a conglomerate. It includes everything from OANN to MSNBC to talk radio to even podcast networks. Information comes from many different places but you know where all of it ultimately comes from? Other people. So as long as there is corruption and dishonesty among people, there will be corruption and dishonesty in the media along with every other industry on earth.
The key here is to gain basic media literacy so you can tell when someone is selling you a bunch of bull. Like when Tucker Carlson pretends he’s “just asking questions” while the answers he pretends to seek are available to anyone with a computer and a phone line.
Disinformation has only gotten worse with technology now that anyone anywhere can say whatever they want and have it read by millions without any checks. Pointing to the media is a waste of time, the biggest problem we have as a society right now is that people do not get their information from reputable outlets anymore. Unless we start teaching media literacy and basic critical thinking our future is not looking very bright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yet as of right now, it seems like the government is running us.
The central problem in our government is the incentive structure. On a broad scale, people will always act within their personal best interests. Being a politician in our modern world is lucrative, not because of good governance but because of all the deals and access one can get in return for their time “served”. So their incentive to get into high power roles is already problematic, but then with election every few years and unlimited terms our elected representatives are set up to care more about their own personal fortunes than the legacy they will leave behind.
I think we desperately need term limits for all of congress. I don’t think it would ever work in a practical sense and it sure as hell would never pass an actual vote but imagine a House of Representatives with 2 year term limits. It would be nothing but a fresh congress every cycle, and every single one would be maximally motivated to accomplish something real for the people they were elected to serve before their one term is up. There would be no self serving reason to run because there would be no future in it.
The media is supposed to produce the facts, and we are supposed to make our own opinions off of it.Yet this has been switched up so much, to where we don't know if the media is misinforming us, or how much the government knows about our lives.Still, we do nothing about it though.
Why do right wingers always talk about “the media” as if it was a person with an agenda, as opposed to a conglomerate with a spectrum of views and motivations?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Not arguing this is an example of a violation of free speech. I said it could lead to it.
Arguing that something could happen is completely useless. Anything could happen. If you get on your car right now you could die in a car accident, but I’m pretty sure that’s not going to stop you the next time you need to go somewhere.
What matters is what’s reasonable to expect, and I just explained why this does not lead in that direction. Again, nothing about the left’s demonstrated values is contradicted in any way by the constitution, in fact it’s the exact opposite. The right is the side right now that seems to want to do away with it.
Perfect. So you admit that the people who are saying white people cant say this or that are wrong, because I'm allowed to say it, but they don't have to listen. I agree with that. But I still have the God given right to say it.
Do you know what a colloquialism is?
No one is claiming you can’t say something as in it’s against the law (or should be) unless we’re talking about something like a threat to someone’s safety, which is a different topic.
Twitter Files from Elon Musk.
The Twitter files did not show anything you are claiming it did.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes.........and the government is run by voting........by the people. What are you not understanding about this?
That’s why we have a constitution genius.
The point of this discussion is to debate its principals. Your entire case to this point is to argue that the left is violating free speech which leads to the conclusion that the left is willing to do away with the constitution. But what you are calling free speech is not constitutional, at all. So your conclusion isn’t just erroneous, it’s completely backwards. It’s the right that has demonstrated a disregard for the actual principals of the constitution, so if anything it’s the right that should be the concern.
You literally just contradicted yourself. People not hearing what you have to say, is silencing you.
It means no one individual or entity is silencing you. Facebook does not get to decide whether you have a platform on Twitter.
If no one out there wants to hear what you have to say, then that is a decision made by society itself. And guess what… society does get to choose. That’s what free speech means, because if everyone has the right to free speech then everyone gets a say in what speech they consider acceptable. Everyone gets a say in whether they want to be subjected to your views. And if everyone decides they do not want to hear what you have to say, then you still get to say it, but no one has to listen. No one has to read it. No one has to hear it. That’s a collective choice everyone has.
Once again; society does not owe you a platform. What is so difficult about this?
government censorship using the media is one way the government is trying to silence opposing views and is tied to the democratic party.
Provide one example of the government “using the media” to silence opposing views.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Maybe the government won't ban your speech but if everyone disagrees with engaging in debating your ideals, it's as good as having no free speech.
Neither the constitution nor the basic principals it was founded on were ever meant to protect one’s right to shove their views down the throats of a society unwilling to hear them.
The entire point of free speech is that it’s up to society as a whole to decide what is acceptable. Government does not always represent the values of the society it governs, so government must be excluded as a means to decide what speech is acceptable.
Your implied solution to one holding views that no one wants to hear is the antithesis of free speech. What you are really advocating for is to remove the right of free speech from everyone who disagrees with a particular viewpoint. Which is not just wrong, it’s incoherent.
If I decided to go on every forum out there and start arguing for the right to rape and molest children, there is and should never be any authority out there to enforce that my views are amplified.
Like I’ve repeated many times over already, you’re talking about the right to a platform. No one owes you that. If there are enough people within a society that want to hear your views, you will be able to find a platform somewhere. The only entity with the potential power to stop that is the government.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Double_R never watches videos linked to, either as evidence for (support of) an argument or to even begin a discussion as I did here.
I click on links when they are presented in support of an argument one is making and it makes a difference what the links shows.
You don’t make arguments, so there’s no point in clicking your links. If I wanted to scour the internet for content explaining certain positions I can do that on my own. I come here to interact with people, to hear what they have to say and to see what they have to say to the points I make. That’s what a debate site is for.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Fair point, but then again you can have your own views, but when your (and a number of others) view is to ban certain people from saying certain things, then that ties into free speech.
It doesn’t tie into free speech, because I just explained that the government is the only authority that can stop you from having the ability to express your views.
If you are banned from Twitter, go to Instagram. If you are banned from Instagram, go to Facebook. If you are banned from Facebook, go to Truth social, Reddit, 4 Chan, or whatever else you want.
No one owes you a platform and your views are not being silenced, the problem is that no one wants to hear what you have to say. And it is the right of the rest of society to decide they do not want to hear it.
Again, government censorship using the media is one way the left is doing this.
Can you please explain what in earth you are talking about?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Because this girl expressed her opinion in a video.
It never ceases to amaze me how blind right wingers are to the self defeating nature of their position here.
They claim to want to protect free speech, yet every example they point to of a free speech violation is actually just someone else exercising their right to free speech, which they are trying to stop.
It’s kind of like claiming you’re trying to save the legitimacy of our democracy - by working to install the loser of the election into office.
The only thing I wonder is who they are actually trying to fool, us or themselves?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Do I have to repeat myself. I said "trying" not "is"
Nonsense. If you read the entirety of my post you would have caught the end part which explains the self-contradictory nature of your free speech advocacy.
You claim to want to protect free speech, but it is only your personal freedom of speech you want to protect and of those who agree with you. When the rest of us speak out against your views, and that public outcry amounts to enough pressure that companies determine it is in their best interest to ban you, that is not an attack on free speech. That is two sides both expressing their views, and one side winning the battle decisively. If you are bothered by this then then the solution is to be more persuasive. If you can’t, then either you are wrong or the rest of society is wrong. Either way, your views within this society will be detrimental to you because it does not align with what the society you live within considers acceptable.
This has nothing to do with laws or rights, it’s basic human nature applied to large social groups.
The only thing that can defeat this phenomenon is an authority powerful enough to silence the majority of voices within the society it holds power over. We decided a long time ago that this outcome was not acceptable, which is why the government cannot interfere with what society considers acceptable speech.
Nothing “the left” is doing violates any of this, so your assertion that the left is trying to become that authority is pure fiction.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Black people would be lynched for this. And it had nothing to do with the government. It was white supremacists in the south who hated the fact that black people are equal to them.
This has nothing to do with the conversation. We’re talking about whether the actions and/or aspirations of a political movement align with the constitution. Of course any group who does not acknowledge its basic principals will not align themselves with it.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Words that people aren't allowed to say, is taking away free speech.
The only entity that has the power to determine what you are “allowed” to say is the government, so if your allegation does not include the government it has nothing to do with free speech.
This isn’t debatable, it’s what free speech means. It’s in the constitution, look it up.
What you’re talking about is public pressure. Public pressure comes from other people whom you share this society with, and who have no more legal authority than you do to tell you their opinions. What you seem to be advocating for is not the right to say whatever you want, it’s the right to say whatever you want without any consequence. That’s absurd.
If we all have freedom of speech then that necessarily includes the right to criticize people who say stupid or insensitive things. We also have the right to speak out against the platforms that amplify such voices, and those platforms have their free speech rights to ban said voices from their platforms as to not alienate the rest of society. That’s what a free market is. That’s what free speech is. If you don’t like it then tough luck, says the rest of us who are exercising our free speech rights to say whatever we want.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I said trying. Not is. The left will not rest until they get there way. Which I assume means they want the government to make this type of language a racial slur or something like that.
So you’re fighting the good fight against an imaginary boogeyman to stop them from some unknown plot to cause some unknown damage. Ok.
You still didn’t address the central point. This issue, even taken to its most extreme logical end (which you have already done) has nothing to do with free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No.....you don't understand. Trans women are men (with or without ball sacks) that identify (think) as women.
Nothing I said conflicted with this, so what don’t I understand?
So, what to say a man could throw on some makeup and a dress, and do whatever he wanted to?
Now you’re talking about men dressing up in drag. Please make up your mind.
A man does not need makeup and a dress to do whatever he wanted to.
And we don't need to even ask, it has happened before:
I literally just told you to spare me your anecdotes.
It's not a political movement, nor should it be a public policy. It would be like making Christianity a political movement and a public policy. LGBTQ+ is a belief, not based in any biological fact whatsoever.
Is was talking about the anti-LGBTQ movement.
Movements that are intellectually legitimate base themselves on actual trends in our society, not on a handful of occurrences within a population of over 300 million people.
......again:
Ok, so let’s run through your headlines…
“Transgender student…” - ok, we can stop there. I asked you for evidence that trans women should be regarded as pedophiles, so not only was your first article immediately disqualifying as it was a story of one person, but it has nothing to do with sexual assault. She was arrested for punching two other girls in the face, probably because they were talking shit to her. I really hope you have something better.
“Oklahoma trans gender student…” - not reading this, another one off and a complete waste of time.
“Transgender teens, bathrooms, sexual assault risk” - ok, this is interesting. Let’s see what it says…
“The study found that 36% of transgender or gender-nonbinary students with restricted bathroom or locker room access reported being sexually assaulted in the last 12 months”
My god dude, are you even reading these articles or just skimming the headlines?
The next as article claiming story hour “admits” to grooming kids is just plain stupid. Apparently “grooming” on the political right is being defined as teaching kids that the LGBTQ community exists. In a way this really says more than you’ve said in this entire thread. It really speaks to the right’s bigotry here that the very idea of teaching our kids to accept the community would be categorized along with child abuse.
The rest of your articles are about library books which has nothing to do with this subject except the last one which is another YouTube video. Not watching that until you can show that you even understand what kind of evidence it would take to support your claim.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Prisoners learn their lesson after lashings possibly more than our current incarceration system. A lot of them want prison because it’s stable food and shelter. All paid for with non consenting taxpayers.
I am aware of no studies concluding that people would be less likely to commit crimes if they were slashed as opposed to jailed indefinitely, and certainly not of anything concluding that they would “learn their lesson”.
I’m also quite sure that releasing the entire prison population for good is not something the overwhelming majority of tax payers would be ok with.
But you are free to believe whatever you want, I guess…
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This is the definition of trying to take away free speech.
Nothing about the concept of free speech includes being free from your neighbor telling you you’re an ass for the things you said.
Using the term “Free speech” in any context that doesn’t involve the government is meaningless and ultimately disingenuous.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you punish them in ANY prison, your tax dollars pay for it. Lash them instead.
And then… let them go? Doesn’t seem like a great way to ensure public safety.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
People decide that Trans-women (men) can go into women's areas, strictly made for women. But those transwomen, still have penises. So what happens when you put a naked man in a woman's locker room. That man still has man hormones' and instincts.
So, first of all… straight men do not go and get their bodies surgically altered to look like women so that they can go have sex with women. That’s just stupid.
And spare me your one anecdote that I’m sure you can find if you search the Internet hard enough since we live in a country of well over 300 million people and a world of over 8 billion. We’re talking about political movements and public policy.
Second and more importantly, I have been asking you to support your assertion that trans women should be regarded as pedophiles despite the fact that the studies and real life all seem to tell us the opposite. Can you do that, or will you finally admit that this “sexual grooming” narrative the right has been peddling is pure bullshit fear mongering?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Oh, haven't you heard? Trans women (Men) have been doing some pretty pedophiliac things to young girls and boys.
I’ve heard that this has become the latest fantasy right wing obsession, yet every study on this I’ve seen seems to show that pedophelia is overwhelmingly a result of childhood sexual abuse and has no established correlation let alone link to gender dysphoria.
But go on and enlighten me…
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol Trump was President. Pence as VP could declassify documents that he had classified in the first place. Biden as a Senator could not declassify. Guess who was treated the best?
So to be clear, refusing to hand over documents that belong to the government after they were subpoenaed, and then lying to the government saying that the documents were returned when they were not… are not legitimate grounds for legal and political backlash. Instead, the mere retention of classified documents is the only thing that should be in consideration here.
Is that really your position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
We are at a level a male is telling they are female even to shower with minors
Please explain how minors becomes part of this discussion.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Are you seriously trying to pretend you have the high ground here when it comes to calm, productive and mature posts?Please, do not act so pious you flagrant #hypocrite!!!But to answer your stupid question, yeah, I do have the high ground.
No need to respond, your post speaks for itself.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Pence and Biden were VPs at the time they acquired the documents and took them home. Why is the real question
Why each of them took the documents home is certainly an important question. So what do we know so far? Well, all three individuals had their documents moved by aides from a location where they had business viewing them to a location where they didn’t.
In the case of Biden and Pence, the number of documents taken was small, so they very well could have gotten mixed up with the rest. We therefore have no reason to invent some nefarious purpose to explain it since an inadvertent misplacing of said documents is a pretty mundane answer which covers it.
In the case of Trump, the number of documents taken was not small, at all. It’s really not conceivable that Trump didn’t know he had them, and that’s before we get to the facts which not only tell us he was fully aware he had them, but that he intentionally hid them from federal authorities after being asked for them back.
When faced with this obvious and significant difference. You continue to assert that Trump was president and therefore had the authority to declassify them. But you assert this without any evidence he actually did, nor do you provide any explanation as to how this is at all relevant to the question; what was he doing with these documents?
So we have two individuals who easily could have had them by accident and gave them back upon discovery without being asked, and a third who knew he had them while lying to the authorities telling them he didn’t. But you feel the need to question why the first two had the documents and not the third?
Why?
but given the fact Biden took very specific documents that shed light on his illegal and corrupt dealings with foreign governments
This is entirely made up. You do not know what was in the documents, all we have are vague unconfirmed reports of what the documents were in relation to. And in the process of drawing your own dots to complete your conspiracy theory you dismiss the fact that even if these reports are accurate, the Obama administration gave Biden a Secretary of State level involvement and responsibilities with regards to foreign policy, so there is nothing remarkable at all about the documents found in Biden’s possession to pertain to the nations he dealt with as VP. In fact it’s exactly what any rational person would expect.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
All three are different in certain ways. Even between Pence and Biden, the FBI/DOJ didn’t use the same procedure (guess who was favored)
I wasn’t asking about the FBI. I was asking about the three individuals being investigated, what they did to capture the attention of those investigating them, and whether the differences between them are more obvious now that the actions of two of them are essentially identical while the other is the complete opposite.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Or choice C:Do what both Democrats and Republicans do and get a new credit card to pay the debt on the old credit card.
C is not an alternative. The two options for the analogy were different ways to maintain fiscal responsibility. You provided a third option that had nothing to do with that.
The point of analogies like this is to simplify the issue to make it easier to understand and disagreements easier to pin point where the differences are. All you have accomplished is to further demonstrate that you do not understand this issue even at its most basic level.
Do you even know what the debt ceiling is?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
@YouFound_Lxam
@TWS1405_2
So now that there are 3 former office holders who have been found to have had classified documents they shouldn’t have had, are you guys still pretending that there’s no difference between Trump and the rest of them? Are we still pretending that we can’t see the similarities between Biden and Pence which do not apply to Trump?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, says every stupid person who thinks we have infinite money. News flash, we have negative money and are still spending it.World doesn't work that way.
Do you even know what the debt ceiling is?
Or let’s just try something simpler; If you find that you are slowly digging yourself into debt because you are living beyond your means, do you
A) Stop using your credit cards to pay for thing you don’t have the money to purchase, or
B) Refuse to pay the bill once it arrives?
Please answer directly. Thanks.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Are you seriously trying to pretend you have the high ground here when it comes to calm, productive and mature posts?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Name me once during any time in the past 50 years Democrats were in control of Congress when the debt ceiling was NOT raised.Try it.
The debt ceiling has always been raised. Until 2011 when republicans lead by Mitch McConnell decided to hold the full faith and credit if the United States hostage, the debt ceiling vote was a quiet routine non-controversial vote which no one even even noticed.
Why are you pretending that your question leads to some kind of point here?
It really does baffle me how you two could be so praising of a political party that has…
Pointing out the utter absurdity and depravity of one political party is not praising the other. That’s common sense to anyone who cares about good faith conversation.
50 years of promising to tax the rich, yet never doing it.
That’s news to every republican politician across the country.
50 years of promising to fix social programs heading toward bankruptcy, never doing it.
You mean the ones they have had to fend off republicans from trying to destroy? That can make fixing issues quite difficult.
50 years of Democrat voters asking for government healthcare, best they can do for the the voters is Obamacare with a tax mandate on the middle class that funnels money directly to the pockets of the rich: big hospital and big pharma lobbies.
So it’s the democrats fault for trying to fix healthcare in a bipartisan way, and instead of some kind of single payer system that every democrat wanted and they had the supermajority needed to accomplish… decided to work with republicans and ultimately put in place a system they created and advocated for years.
I agree with you, we missed a big opportunity there by trying to play nice with children whose only interest was smudging their feces all over the walls. It’s just a strange retort coming from someone who is clearly on the political right.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think the Democrat plan for saving Social Security is far better. Raise the debt limit to infinity and beyond!
Yes, that would be far better, says every rational person ever.
If you want to get serious about reducing our deficit the time to do that is when the credit card is being swiped, not when the bill comes in the mail.
The proverbial credit card swiping here mostly occurred during the Trump administration when he was adding $2 trillion to the debt in order to give the rich like himself a tax break, along with the rest of his policies. No one on the political right gave a rats ass about it then, but all of a sudden it matters now that there’s a democrat in the White House.
Funny thing is that we all said then this is exactly what they were going to do. It’s beyond hypocrisy at this point. There’s just something about right wing politics where its base gets a hard on watching its politicians pretend to be serious while peddling obvious bullshit. Politics isn’t about real issues in real life to these people, it’s just a team sport, which is pathetic.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Pathetic deflection. 🙄
I know, crazy that I would ask you to write words and make arguments for yourself… on a debate site.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You’re suppose to just read the damn book to understand the intent and purpose of the arguments given within it by the author
You haven’t authored anything. That’s the point.
Present an actual argument. You know, that’s where you type words and string them together to form sentences so that thoughts and ideas can be communicated. Then I can see if there is a point to watching any, let alone all 2 hours of this video.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You ask for evidence, we give you evidence, yet you still complain that we aren't giving you enough, then have the audacity to call us lazy?
I didn’t say you weren’t giving me enough, I said that as far as I can tell your “evidence” does not address the thing I asked you to provide an example of. Someone interviewing and stumping doctors for YouTube views hardly qualifies as support for your assertion that the “woke left” of trying to normalize medically transitioning kids.
And if I’m wrong about that then that’s perfectly fine. You know what you could do? Explain how it does. You see, debating might be new to you so you could probably be forgiven here, but you have to make your own arguments to be taken seriously. Links are perfectly fine for support, like if someone wants to see if your facts check out, but just pasting a link, and especially a link to a 2 hour video, is not supporting your claim. It’s an attempt to bullshit your way out of an argument by asking the other person to invest time they likely don’t have in order to figure out for themselves what you’re trying to prove.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Abortion should be illegal, except for cases where it is a threat to the mother's life.
America disagrees
Created: