Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Imagine thinking a trial where there is ZERO cross examination, there are ZERO people defending Donald Trump, and there are ZERO people wanting to investigate Nancy Pelosi’s role in J6 is at all “fair.”
Imagine being so brazenly, rankly partisan that one can no longer tell the difference between a criminal trial and a congressional hearing.
Imagine being so unconcerned with reality that one fails to realize everyone testifying against Trump is doing so under oath, while everyone defending him is doing so on Fox News or as anonymous sources.
Imagine being so wildly blind that one ignores the fact that nearly every witness testifying against Trump voted for him, worked in his administration, or both, all while pretending Trump is being attacked "by the left".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the actual policies impacting all of our lives.It sure as fuck aint Jan 6
When we talk about January 6th were not talking about a bunch of angry Trump supporters storming the Capitol. We're talking about the culmination of a months long campaign to delegitimize our system of democracy so a wannabe dictator could hold onto power over the will of the voters. Yes, that impacts all of our lives. If politicians are no longer accountable to the voters then discussion about gas prices no longer matters.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Or, they're not saying it because it's not true.
Did the individual break the law, yes or no?
Is the allegation of criminal activity one that anyone else would be prosecuted for? Yes or no?
Address these questions seriously, then we can have an actual conversation on whether this is political.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thanks for the dismissive attitude. The majority of Americans are absolutely fed up with the patronizing dismissive Democrats.
Whataboutisms deserve to be dismissed.
You jumped into a thread about January 6th to talk about inflation. What response other than dismissiveness were you seriously expecting?
It never ceases to amaze me how the right wing of America cares more about how the voters on the other side talk about them than the actual policies impacting all of our lives. The childishness is really unbelievable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
None of the committee members voted against impeachment.
Because Trump was guilty. That's what happens when you care more about reality then your own political future.
Trump's approval is higher now than Jan 6 thanks to the partisan theatre.
You mean thanks to propaganda. This is the result of a 24/7 network that gets to call themselves news while their prime time anchors are literally appearing on stage with the president and texting the game plan back and forth with his chief of staff and press secretary. It turns out the masses are as easy to manipulate as in the movies.
if you truly cared about maintaining political power to the orangemanbad cult past November, you would condemn the theatrics and demand genuine bipartisan support, even from people who voted against impeachment. To refuse to do that suggests half of the democratically elected Congress is undermining Democracy somehow or at least does not care about Democracy.
There is no such thing as genuine bipartisan support on this. What Trump has taught the republican party that the base does not give a rats ass about policy. This is a party about grievances, mostly white. You no longer need to worry about legislative accomplishments, as long as you can show that you stand with Trump and against the evil libs, you will have a seat at the table. That is all that matters, which is why two of the most conservative members of Congress will probably never serve again.
This whole thing is a game. Republicans pretend that what we all saw with our own eyes didn't actually happen, then refuse to take any part in the investigation of it, then blame democrats for said investigation being partisan. It's the stupidest playbook, but yet it works.
What is love to know from you is, why? Why do you let these people manipulate you like this? The playbook couldn't be any more obvious, there's no way you just don't see it.
Created:
Posted in:
I care about Democracy when...
If your concern is conditional then you don't care about it.
English 101.
Hot take on a purely partisan hearing orchestrated by an orangemanbad cult.
2 of the committee members are republicans who voted with Trump over 90% of the time, and nearly every single person who testified publicly is a republican, a former Trump aid, or both. To call this a purely paisan hearing is just plain stupid, and I think you know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Unfortunately many poor white farmers are buying into right wing propaganda that says the left is elitist while really the right is. The elites can maintain a chokehold far easier in right wing economics.
This will always be a point of fascination for me. When republicans had control of all three levers of the legislative body their only major accomplishment was a 2 trillion dollar shift largely towards the top 1%. Yet somehow they have managed to get people to believe they are the party against the elites. It's patently absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Surely this will solve inflation and save the Democrats from getting blown the fuck out of power in November. Surely.
So more whataboutisms. *Yawn*.
Just say no, you really don’t care about democracy. Why the dance?
More like another wasted day of devastating hearsay theatre.
You mean another day with another former Trump aid testifying under oath about her personal experience showing how dangerous and deluded the current republican front runner is while you complain about Biden.
Any rational person understands the magnitude and significance of her testimony. Only partisan hacks can convince themselves it doesn’t mean anything.
this kangaroo court
Every person around these events has been invited and even subpoenaed to testify. None of the ones defending Trump on Fox News will tell their story under oath. That should make you think, but it won’t.
Created:
Posted in:
Another devastating hearing yesterday, this time establishing that Trump wanted the security X ray machines removed so the mob could be armed.
To all the Trump apologists here… do you have any actual thoughts on this yet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
And ya, they're effective too, but i just don't see banning them as a solution when they shooter can just change brands. So then, you go down the rabbit hole of banning the other guns and that's why it's a losing argument
Classic slippery slope. This is like saying if we lower the drinking age to 18, why not 16? And then why not 10, and then why not 1?
The lines we draw are always going to be arbitrary, that doesn’t mean we don’t draw any.
I also did say i don't know how this would work out... would accidently death outweigh any benefits? or not? I acknowledge accidents will still happen, but if by the same measure, mass shootings / killings sharply decrease, i would say it's a net benefit.
No one ever knows for certain how any policy will work out in the end, that’s why we operate based on logic and reason. The logic of your “hand everyone a gun” proposal is lacking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Then what do you make of 3RU7AL's contention that:3RU7AL Post #81:lacking a belief in bigfootvery strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist
I see nothing here I disagree with.
Is it then your argument that "lack of [positive] belief" necessarily informs a [positive] belief in the object of concern being falsifiable?
If I’m understanding this question correctly, no.
Accepting a proposition as true and accepting a proposition as falsifiable are two different things and one has nothing to do with the other.
Didn't you just argue that the two were functionally indistinguishable?
Yes I did. Functionality is about one’s actions, the theism/atheism address one’s beliefs. Functionality has nothing to do with this particular point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok. So Joseph Robinette Biden is single-handedly responsible for a world wide surge in gas prices
ILikePie5: “Definitely”
Greyparrot: “No”
Why don’t you two figure it out and get back to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
When Trump was in office, everything was a problem for Europe lol.
Because Trump was a moron who couldn’t figure out who our allies were. To him the ones we should be aligning ourselves with are dictatorships. Gee I wonder why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
When did other countries blame Obama for their problems.
The world wasn’t experiencing a massive economic catastrophe all allegedly because of Obama‘s economic policies, and certainly not one that he could have immediately addressed and miraculously fixed.
It speaks to how some folks on the political right really seem to think there are no other countries on earth. This is why people hate Americans. And what’s ironic about it is that the people guilty of it are usually the same ones railing against “the elites”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ok. So Joseph Robinette Biden is single-handedly responsible for a world wide surge in gas prices because of policies he is actively enacting, and no country on earth is calling for him to reverse course.
Imagine how deluded one has to be to believe this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I would’ve said the same thing if the President was any other Republican
Then this was clearly the result of the republican party's positioning, not the work of one man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Definitely
Can you provide just one example of any country on earth blaming Joe Biden for their high gas prices and calling on him to reverse [insert policy here]?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
This was possible because of one person: Donald John Trump
lol right, because no other republican president in this era would have appointed pro life justices.
You are obviously on his payroll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Double Rs dismissal of post 164 is proof he doesn't want a good faith conversation about this at all.Pretty sure America is tired of the "Bidenmangood" rhetoric as well.
What a stupid comment.
No one here has argued bidenmangood. You continue to talk to yourself.
I've explained repeatedly what I'm looking for, your post didn't attempt to address it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So the bottom is about Joe Biden? Or are we talking actually talking about during COVID.
We’re talking about the reason gas prices went up, and specifically, how much of it Biden would be held responsible for. So what was happening before he took office is irrelevant which should have been obvious.
Add hard to start a project back up with a million regulations that Biden passed, not to mention restriction on where you can drill.
How much are we adding? That’s kind of the entire point of this thread as I’ve pointed out repeatedly.
Trump wouldn’t have added regulations. The market stabilizes itself. With growing demand, oil companies would start drilling more. There isn’t a lack of capital in the oil industry. And Trump didn’t do anything because he didn’t have to since pandemic was still going on in 2020 lol. It’s Biden that messed up the entire system by adding further regulation and preventing smaller companies from emerging because of the massive amount of money required for compliance.
So let’s be clear; it is your position that nearly every country on earth is dealing with a massive spike in oil prices, all because Joe Biden added regulations. Is this correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Let freedom ring
The most basic rule of freedom is that the freedom to swing your arms ends at the next person’s nose. One’s right to “self defense” by carrying a gun on them at all times places everyone around that person at elevated risk because their lives are now subject to the individuals level of responsibility, judgement, and aim.
But yeah, go freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
In which case, referencing quality philosophy resources can be useful and strengthen one's case.
No, they don’t. Arguments stand or fall on their own merit, not because respected person X said so.
Sources are useful for affirming one’s factual assertions to keep arguments from evolving into a diarrhea of unchecked falsehoods. If the argument you’re making is philosophical and you understand it, you don’t need someone else’s stamp to validate it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Answered in POST #80
Ok, let’s look at your answer in post 80 to see if you actually addressed it:
Question: “Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?
Answer: “Dawkins does not consider gods desirable or necessary. He is not missing or wanting a belief in gods. Dawkins believes that a belief in gods is destructive to human progress. Dawkins disbelief is active and affirmative. To describe that as a lack of something is false.”
It seems the meaning of basic words and/or phrases has escaped you yet again. Let’s break this question down part by part to see if we can finally get this clarified. To start we’re going to break this up into 3 parts; hold, belief, deity or deities.
Hold: Used in this context is a metaphor to mean that the position described accurately reflects one’s worldview.
Example: Person A holds the position that abortion should be legal. Translation: “abortion should be legal” accurately describes Person A’s worldview on this subject.
Belief: refers to one’s psychological state towards a proposition, specifically, to believe a proposition is to accept that proposition as true.
Deity or deities: much more on this later. For now I presume I do not need to explain.
So let’s put all of this together by repeating the question, this time translated;
Is it an accurate description of Richard Dawkins worldview, that he accepts as true, the existence of a deity or deities?
So does your answer address this question? Let’s look at it again:
“Dawkins disbelief is active and affirmative. To describe that as a lack of something is false.”
The answer is no, you did not address the question. I’m talking about belief and you’re talking about disbelief. So why the disconnect? Is it that you do not understand what the question was asking, or are you just being disingenuous? Clearly, the latter. Here’s why;
First, let me start by pointing out the distinction between two different concepts. I will label them stand alone propositions and clumping.
Stand alone postpositions: God either exists or he does not exist. That’s it, there are no other options. So when it comes to propositions we break this up into the following:
Proposition A: “A God exists”
Proposition B: “No gods exist”
The significance of stand alone propositions is that they are addressed separately. Invalidating an argument which seeks to affirm one of these propositions does not necessarily prove the other.
Example: “The defendant is guilty because he is shown on video robbing the liquor store”. Response: “the individual in the video is covered head to toe, there is no telling who this individual is”.
The response invalidating the claim that he is guilty does not prove his innocence.
Clumping: this is where we take two stand alone propositions and clump them together. This is done by rephrasing the subject from one of the two propositions (i.e. “A god exists” or “No gods exist”) and turn it into a question of whether a god exists.
The problem in this thread and in arguing with theists in general about this subject is that they pretend not to understand the difference between these two concepts when they do. Here’s the proof:
“I believe in god”
This sentence translated, means “I accept as true the proposition that a god exists”.
Mental illness aside, no theist on earth needs this sentence explained to them. No theist has ever heard someone say they believe in god and thought, “so what do you believe?”
Turns out the concept of stand alone propositions is very well understood. But what happens when an atheist comes along and says “I lack belief in a god”?
Suddenly, “a god” in this sentence no longer means “the proposition that a god exists” as it did before. Now, theists translate this into “I lack belief towards the question of whether a god exists”, and then pretend that no other translation is coherent.
So going back to the top, you understand that when we say “the existence of any deities” we’re talking about the proposition that a deity or deities exist. We’re not talking about the question of whether deities exist. So let’s try this one more time:
Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No, I’m trying to teach you basic economics since socialists don’t understand it or don’t know it.
Yep, just trying to own the lib. Got it.
No. Your statement: “by the lack of supply which was obliterated during COVID,” is just straight up false. Supply of oil was overwhelming relative to demand. During COVID, prices were low because there was not demand.
We're not talking about "during COVID" when there was no demand, that's why this thread is literally about Joe Biden. Context clues. Learn them.
The phrase "the supply was obliterated during COVID" is talking about producers going out of business and other projects being shut down. It's much easier to shut a project down than to start it back up so once the demand comes roaring back as it did, supply is not going to keep up.
No we wouldn’t because supply would’ve remained constant or even increased under Donald Trump to match demand thus decreasing gas prices or keeping them level to pre-pandemic levels.
Please explain what Trump would have done to fix this, and why he didn't do it in 2020:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Serious comment or did I miss the joke?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If someone forfeits, they lose on arguments...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
In any seriousness, this system was created possibly in "2008". We already have the number of debates in the 2000s or even then 3000s. We can't change the vote of all of them. If we do then, the leaderboard will shift massively due to a change of how wins work.
I don't see why any completed or started debates would need to be changed. I'm sure they could just adjust the system for all new debates. DDO did that when they transitioned to a point system from the simple vote system they used previously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@coal
@Jeff_Goldblum
@Intelligence_06
Good discussion so far. Just wanted to add my thoughts in response; I do agree with points for seperate categories, I just don't think they're being weighed appropriately. If it were me I'd give 4 points for arguments, 1 point each for spelling/grammar, sources, and conduct. So even if someone loses on everything else, they'd still win based on the argument. That way only the closest of debates would be decided by the other categories.
I think the other three categories should still be encouraged, a simple Pro or Con vote fails to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
I've always emphatically disagreed with sources in debates being worth two points, especially when the most convincing argument is only worth three.
First of all, the reliability of a source is highly subjective, especially in today's political climate.
Second, everyone has their own opinion on what criteria we even use to judge sources. Some voters give sources to one participant over the other just because they used more of them.
Third and most importantly, sources are not always relavant to the topic and/or the arguments being made. Most debates come down to philosophical differences. The entire point of a debate is to argue your point, not ramble off a bunch of links that say you're right.
That's not to say sources shouldn't be judged or that there are not some debates where reliable sources are crucial to the debate, but I find that in most cases it just skews the point total in ways it shouldn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I have provided you quotes to the article you linked, which you thereafter contested the veracity of. Admit the quotes are correct, or any "dialogue" is a waste of time.
I didn't contest the veracity of the quotes. How on earth you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me. I contested your interpretation of the quotes. And since your interpretation is what we're talking about I don't need to look elsewhere to get answers. You're the one making these claims, support your claims.
Mainly, we differ on whether the second amendment and any of the documented discussions surrounding it were meant to establish the un-fringable right of individual Americans to own arms vs that of the "well regulated malitia's" which is referring to members of the organized group.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Jerome Powell says that statement is pure bullshit.
Do you have an opinion of your own to share?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No. You don’t know or don’t understand economics. Prices increase on two occasions: supply gets lower while demand stays constant or demand gets higher while supply stays constant.
Are you even trying to understand anything I'm saying, or just trying to put on a show for your friends so you can say you owned the lib?
The fact that I did not mention demand does not mean I don't think demand was a key part of the equation. I should not have to explain to you that when I talk about the lack of supply, the fact that demand is returning far faster is the other contributing factor. That's common sense.
If demand had suddenly returned while Trump was still in office we would have seen the same phenomenon, which is why it's ridiculous to claim Biden's policies are responsible for most of the gas price hike.
False. Gas prices were already high before the war.
I'm talking about gas prices right now. But if you want to take that off the table that's fine, I was just trying to be straightforward since right wingers love to bring that up as another thing to blame on Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?
Would love a response to the entire post, but at the very least address this question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What does one who merely lacks belief do?
All of the same things everyone else does, they just don't do the things that those who believe do.
Functionally, one who merely lacks belief is indistinguishable from one who disbelives
Lacks a belief which affirms, not one which negates.
The affirmation in this sentence is the thing we're talking about. When we say "lacks belief" that's just short for "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties".
How is that a "step further"?
Because one must lack belief in the existence in any dieties in order to believe that no dieties exist, the same way one must be Pro life in order to believe no exceptions should be made for rape or incest. The former can be the case without the latter, the latter cannot be the case without the former.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What is a "lack of belief" in juxtaposition to "active DISbelief"?
One who merely lacks belief does not DISbelieve.
One who DISbelieves does lack belief.
Therefore DISbelievers are just going a step further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
even a kindergartener would argue that "lack of belief" does not mean something different than "lack of belief in gods or deities"
That's because kindergarteners have yet to understand that in conversation, context matters.
Most kindergarteners would also not know to read the debate description, where the resolution was explained in detail:
"Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"
That already explains that we're not just talking about some abstract concept of just "lacking belief". But I went on to explain it even further for those that needed their hand to be held:
"The definition contrasts with Con's position that the definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of any gods. The purpose of the debate is to determine which of these two definitions should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize."
Perhaps if you read the rules of the debate before judging it you would have known what the debate was about.
False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief, they actively believe that there can be no gods and actively believe that belief in gods is wrong.
Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?
Your argument is that since all impartials and roundists are anti-flatists let's re-define all impartials and roundists as simply anti-flatists.
That's not even close to what I'm arguing.
First of all, no one cares to create terms for impartial flatists. This is a debate no one is seriously having, and has no real impact on anyone's life. Terms are created because there is a need for them. There is a serious need for theists and atheists to be understood within our society. There is absolutely no need for this conversation.
Second, I know of no one who takes the position that they simply lack belief in the shape of the earth, yet nearly every atheist takes the position that they lack belief in the existence of a god.
Third, there is only one earth, so whatever position you take on it is your position. Theism includes every god concept ever conceived, so there is no way to know what anyone's position is on any given subset of it until you ask them.
Fourth, "anti" means "against", so your term already assumes things that do not apply to the subset of people you are clumping together.
A belief that no gods can exist is a much more affirmative assertion than "simply lack of belief" and cannot be re-categorized as mere lack of belief without giving insult to those believers.
It's not a recategorization, it's broadening the definition to make it more inclusive. Someone who believes using contraception warrants the death penalty is pro life. That doesn't mean everyone who is pro life agrees with that position. Apparently, you think that means we should come up with a new term for that specific subset of pro lifers as to not lump them in with those who just don't think terminating a pregnancy should be legal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You said there is nothing Biden could do about, which practically absolves him of all responsibility.
Quote what I said along with the context. Good luck.
By admitting that Biden’s rhetoric during his 2020 campaign and heavily regulatory policies have directly contributed to most of the increase in gas prices.
No, because that's ridiculous. Gas price increases are primarily driven by the lack of supply which was obliterated during COVID. That's why every country in the world is experiencing a drastic rise in gas prices.
Ukraine/Russia is also a major driver, but I'm pretty sure most Americans agree today we shouldn't be funding Russia's genocide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's what Russians say about you when you say "America liberated Iraq."
Why can't you admit you were very happy to hear Biden was going to "end fossil fuel" in 2020 and didn't care what that meant for average people.
Let me know when you want to have a conversation with me as opposed to you're imaginary Boogeyman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Simply "lack of belief" means something radically different than "lack of belief in gods or deities" or " disbelief or lack of belief in gods or deities."
Is this a joke?
It doesn't mean something radically different, it literally means the exact same fucking thing. The debate I just had and the discussion in this thread is talking about the idea of what atheism is, not the best sentence structure the dictionary should use to define the term.
Seriously dude?
Look- you start by arguing A should only equal X when traditionally A=XYZ.
Sounds like you haven't paid attention to a word I've said here or in the debate.
A = Atheism
X= lack of belief in the existence of any dieties
Y = a belief in the non-existence of any dieties
To argue that "A = simply X" does not mean "Y is no longer part of A"
Y and X both include a lack of belief, because it is logically impossible for one to believe in the non-existence of any dieties without lacking belief in the existence in any dieties. Therefore X is a subset of Y.
Thus the extra quality that Y adds into the equation is unnecessary and can be discarded.
To put it another way:
Y = X+
The + is the unnecessary part and therefore need not be included in the conceptual definition. This is where the term "simply" comes in. The definition only refers to X, which is part of both X and Y.
So no, we're not saying X has always been a part of A, we're saying X has always been the only necessary component to make one A
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Liberate Ukraine from the west? Wow, you're genuinely delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's no reason why Americans have to suffer while Russians can buy 3 dollar gas.
Does genocide not qualify as a reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re acting like Biden has ZERO blame for these high prices, which is either ignorant or stupidity (I think the former).
I'm not, I've actually said he had some blame, not that I would expect you to pay attention to the context of this thread.
But fine, I'm acting like Biden has ZERO blame and you're acting like he has 100% blame. How do we resolve this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Let's get something straight... The current definition of atheism is in fact, a lack of belief. Google the damn word. I just did, here are the results:
1st: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
Google (taken from Oxford)
2nd: "The meaning of ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
Miriam-Webster
3rd: "This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists."
Plato.Stanford.Edu
4. atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
- Britannica
5. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Wikipedia
So four out of the first five definitions that pop up include lack of belief as the definition, and if you actually ask any atheist they will explain to you what the word means.
At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.
Nor was I talking about it there. I was explaining why the definition you advocate for does not work according to your own criteria. You claim lack of belief will increase confusion, but only those who already don't understand basic critical thinking are the ones who will be confused by it. That's not an increase of confusion, just moving the confusion to a new concept and one which they would all be better off understanding.
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
Your criteria was literally the same as his
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The point is that there is one and only one way out of this, and that’s increasing supply. I understand that doing this takes time but not only is he not taking steps in that direction, there’s a laundry list of actions he’s taken that do the opposite.
I'm not disagreeing with you. As you've acknowledged, it takes time so any immediate impact we would see from any actions he could take would be minimal at best. So what's the point here? I'm just arguing that the obsession with Biden's terrible handling of gas prices is overblown and a disingenuous distraction from what were talking about when it comes to what the republicans are doing.
Gas prices are a political football. If Trump had actually won they would still be at record highs and democrats would be campaigning against the GOP telling America all about how Trump fucked up the entire world economy. It would be just as much nonsense as this, and yet would have far more credibility since he oversaw the entire collapse.
I just want a genuine conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Furthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humans
Complete nonsense, it does the exact opposite.
This is the result of a failure to understand the most basic elements of critical thinking; No claim should be accepted without valid evidence.
"God exists" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.
"No gods exist" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.
No valid evidence exists for either claim, therefore neither claim should be accepted.
The overwhelming majority of atheists understand this. If theists understood how this works we would increase communication, not decrease it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't buy it.
I don't buy that the earth is round.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
What concrete actions has he taken to lower inflation/gas prices?
Releasing from the statigic oil reserve, an executive order removing regulations on the same of E15, supported an anti price gauging bill the republicans killed, and is considering a tax holiday.
What's your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The obfuscation to avoid blaming Biden for anything really is amazing. The same thing happened several months ago in a thread about the ongoing border crisis. The quarter million a month illegals pouring in can’t have anything to do with Biden de facto legalizing it by simply releasing them en masse and flying them to their place of choice in the country…no siree
If you started a thread on gas prices saying that Biden's policies have made things worse, I highly doubt you would find a bunch of lefties jumping into the thread to talk about January 6th.
The problem is not that lefties cant admit that Biden has done anything wrong, it's that we're responding to the blatant disingenuousness and partisan hackery where Biden is fully responsible for all our gas troubles and this is why we need to ignore the fact that the GOP is literally trying to end democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s how supply and demand shocks work, yes. Basic economics.
Supply and demand shocks are temporary. That's why they're called "shocks". Is it your position that gas prices will go back up once the shock wears off?
There is no “specific quantity” people predict oil supply is going to drop by, but people sure as hell know it’s going to drop because it will become far more expensive to drill because of regulation and Biden policies that he promised during his campaign.
The permits and leases you're talking about will add no value to the market for years. By the time that happens Biden could very well be out of office. If investors are looking that far ahead they're looking at far more than Biden, and what they're seeing is that the entire world is working towards moving on from oil.
This is far bigger than Biden, which is my point. You guys love to take small pieces of the equation and act like it's all about one man so you can pretend 100% of your anger towards the cause of 10% of the problem is justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Maybe you missed the voluminous explanation I provided. Read it and get back to me.
I also missed the part where you attempted to quantify any of it. That was kind of the point.
The main reason for gas prices is well understood; COVID completely disrupted the market by making oil so cheap the price was negative, putting oil companies out of business and nearly stopping production world wide. Now that demand has returned, supply is no where near able to keep up. This is why the pain is being felt world wide.
Russia is also a big reason, but what we should as a result of them trying to commit genocide on Ukraine is a far more nuanced conversation than "gas high therefore Biden bad".
I'm not claiming Biden's policies have had no impact, I don't know anyone who is. This thread is a response to those pretending that their fixation on gas prices, which they then use to dismiss any argument against what the current GOP is defending and propogating, is anything more than blatant partisan hackery.
Created: