Total posts: 5,871
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Can’t win if you don’t fight back
This is a debate site. The idea is you’re supposed to express and defend your view points, but you have no principals to stand on because to you this is all a game.
The problem there is twofold; if you cede on the principal for the sake of “fighting back” then not only have you lost on the principal you professed to defend since you are now joining the other side in attacking it, but you also cut your legs out from underneath you since your words no longer mean a thing.
If you’re ok with political retaliation in one instance, you no longer have a leg to stand on to criticize anyone else for retaliation, so your criticisms of the other side become null and void. In the end, all your left with is the other side not being wrong (because you believe in the same thing) and you being a hypocrite (because you professed one thing and your actions said the opposite).
I’m no political strategist, but that doesn’t seem like a way to win to me. But then again, everything I just said only matters to one who values things like reason and logic. If on the other hand all you care about is political power, then by all means carry on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Pretty sure he’s having flashbacks from when I did that to him in our debate.
Still talking about our debate?
You remind me if Al Bundy - a man in his fifties still bragging at every turn about how he scored 4 touchdowns in a high school football game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump was a beloved celebrity until he uttered those words. There are over 100 instances of documented government retaliation against Trump after those words were spoken vs the one against Disney.
First of all, politics is not a team sport, there is no 100-1 scorecard. If someone retaliates against Trump, that would be wrong and should be addressed. Just as what happened to Disney is wrong and needs to be addressed. Why is that so difficult?
But more importantly, you are now just calling every action adverse to Trump’s fortunes retaliation. That’s ridiculous and is not what retaliation means.
You are probably correct that had Trump not ran for president, the Manhattan DA would not have ended up investigating him. But the fact that you can connect those dots does not make it retaliation any more than you are guilty of homicide because someone read your text message while driving and took their eyes off the road.
Retaliation means the connection is direct. If on the day Trump announced his candidacy, the Manhattan DA said “hey we can’t have this, let’s find something to prosecute him for”, then you would have a case. But since you have absolutely zero evidence of this, your claim is just unsubstantiated BS.
The reality is that Trump running for office did what running for office does to every presidential candidate; it places everything they have done their entire lives under a microscope for the whole world to see.
Unfortunately for Trump, that means a lifetime of committing crimes suddenly became thrust into public knowledge, placing anyone in a position of law enforcement with an obligation to look into it. That’s how enforcing the law works. No, not every person who commits a crime will get caught. But person A flying under the radar for their crimes does not mean person B shouldn’t have to have consequences for what they got caught doing.
This is not remotely similar to what happened to Disney.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i still maintain that if we support the government facilitating free speech, we should support non-government entities promoting free speech for the same or similar reasons.
You are confusing the right free speech with the right to be heard. The latter is not a real thing and it shouldn’t be.
The reason we have free speech is so that the government cannot shield its citizens from reality thus allowing it to commit atrocities unchecked. This is exactly what’s happening in Russia right now. We all have a right to make informed decisions when electing our leaders. That’s what free speech protects.
What you’re arguing for is for private companies to provide platforms to anyone even if they abuse those platforms. The free market is a completely different animal, so it should be treated as such. If one platform bans you, go to another. If your ban is unwarranted, the free market will treat it accordingly because there is always somewhere else to go. If the government punishes you, there is no where else. So these are not remotely the same thing.
When you are banned from every prominent platform out there, you are probably the problem.
I agree 100% with what Facebook and Twitter have done. Free speech as you’re defining it is nice in theory, but when one uses those platforms to spread misinformation and foment violence, it would be incredibly irresponsible for those companies to not ban him.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech
Freedom of speech protects us from the government, it’s not something the government acts to protect us from. Government protection in this context simply means to not violate our rights.
So like S1 said, the idea of government getting involved in any way is not protection, it’s a violation. You cannot protect one’s right to use a platform without violating the right of those who wish for their platform to not be used.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As has been said before, Disney executives have not lost one iota of their power to speak freely, considering they own multiple media platforms not available to most people.
And if they use them to express their dissent against the Florida government they will suffer financial and/or legal repercussions, just like they did the first time.
Sorry to tell you but that’s not what free speech is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s not overtly wrong to say ideally I’d like free speech for everyone. Democrats clearly don’t support that. They’ve won all the social issues for the past couple of decades.
Free speech means the government cannot use its power to silence you, it does not mean you have a right to “win” on social issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yet you post to me unsolicited anyway.
Would you prefer to be written off as not worth the attempt at serious conversation?
They’re hardly hidden; you wear them on your sleeve, which is just fine other than you refuse to own up to them
Or… you are just not paying attention to what I’m actually saying because you’re so busy injecting caricatured motives into your assessment of what I wrote.
and I don’t focus on *you*; I focus on what you say— big difference
Yes it is. So let’s look at what you actually said so we can test that…
That the OP attempts to frame the whole 1A violation controversy as unique to DeSantis’ actions should be an insult to everyone’s intelligence in this forum.
That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. That is purely a statement about me or more specifically what I’m attempting to do here, clearly painting me as being deceptive.
So yes, you were focused on me.
Of course, the Democrats prioritize the 1A, but it’s not a central issue for them?
Correct. The only reason we are talking about the 1A is because the political right doesn't know what it means and keeps on claiming their free speech is being violated because society doesn’t like what they have to say. In other words, it’s a response to what the right has made a central political issue.
You can’t seriously think the left is driving this. How many people in these mid terms will vote based on concerns about free speech? Now tell me what percentage of that do you think we’ll be republican vote vs for democrats? It won’t even be close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
In fact I’ve said nothing about any other scenario.That’s the crux of what I’m saying about how you frame this as unique to the GOP.
This is a perfect example of why our conversations go no where.
Starting a thread saying “action X is bad, so can those who defend it please explain why” does not imply anything you’re suggesting. But that’s what you are hearing because you are not looking at what’s being said, you’re busy looking for hidden motivations so you can focus on me instead.
This really is simple, do you agree with what he did? If so why? And can you please square your position on this with your self professed principals?
That’s all.
Do you believe that the Democratic Party, in contrast, does not claim to prioritize the 1A?
Of course they do, but it’s not a central issue for them. Just watch 1 hour of cpac speeches and watch how many times free speech comes up. If there were a Democratic equivalent how many times do you think we would hear that? It wouldn’t even compare.
And, likewise, the political left defends its stances, hypocritical or not. It is as if you cannot comprehend human biases and are unaware of your own.
No, it’s because I recognize that two things can be true at the same time. If you’d like to start a thread on any of your perceived left wing hypocrisy’s I will be happy to chime in with my thoughts. Until then, we’re not talking about me or the political left. This thread is about Florida and Desantis. Let me know if you have any thoughts on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Easy. Democratic legislators used their power to ban Chick Fil A from operating in airports because of their “anti-LGBT” beliefs. Sounds like targeting to me.
The example you’re citing appears to be when the San Antonio city counsel voted a ban chic- fil-a from its airport. That’s an awfully benign comparison, even if it were valid. But it’s not.
It’s not retaliation to decide that you are not ok with companies discriminating against certain segments of the population. That’s a policy stance. Saying “I’m going to strip you of your status because you criticize me” is retaliation. Do you understand the difference, or shall I explain further?
Liberal are using scorched earth tactics with their social/cultural issues, while conservatives just dilly dally on the higher road.
Republicans have launched an all out assault on voting rights, are actively working to install public officials who will advocate for the governments right to decide the winner of the election instead of its own people, are gerrymandering the shit out of the house races, have two SC Justices on the bench because of the most brazen hypocrisy I’ve seen in my lifetime, and then there is the flagrant disregard for the very idea of civility or truth, like Kevin McCarthy standing in front of cameras telling the nation he didn’t say what we all just heard him say on tape, which he will pay absolutely no political price for. MTG and Lauren Bobert repeatedly say the dumbest and most offensive things about the Holocaust, again, no political price. The idea that conservatives take the high road is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard you say.
I would condemn them. But if nothing is done about, which let’s be honest, hasn’t, Democrats should have no concern about it happening with them.…It’s a simple question: how far does it have to go for you to say enough is enough?
I actually found this bit to be very revealing. You cannot claim you have principals when you are so easily willing to abandon them. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but this is why I take nothing you say seriously. Pretty much every exchange I read from you is in defense of something your “side” did that you are ok with because ‘other side bad’. There is nothing serious about that.
I’m sure you will levy the same criticism of me, but in my view what I do is very different. I will certainly attack what I see as hypocrisy and in many cases I refuse to engage with someone until they acknowledge their own hypocrisy, but I would never pretend that what my side did was ok because the other side did it too, with very few exceptions.
One of those exceptions would be that I support democrats never confirming another Republican appointed SC nominee. But that’s not a principal issue, it’s a process issue. Republicans have made it clear that this is their playbook, so democrats have no choice. But when it comes to matters of principal and integrity, that’s a completely different issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Your creative reimagination of what I said is not, and will never be, consistent with, implied by or otherwise acquiesced based on, what I said.
Ok, let’s go back and take a look…
What Ron DeSantis is doing is exactly what he should be doing. One power center is checking another.So to be clear, you are ok with government punishing corporations because their executives exercised their right to free speech?
So Ron Desantis according to you is doing what he is supposed to be doing.
What he actually did was target Disney corporation with a punitive law in direct response to Disney criticizing the new Florida law.
Whether you believe they should, currently, Corporations in America have freedom of speech.
Criticizing a law passed by the government is a basic expression of freedom of speech. In fact, it might be the most basic example of freedom of speech there is.
Therefore, a Government punishing a corporation for exercising their right to free speech is, according to you, what Ron Desantis should be doing.
Sounds like my characterization of your position as stated is perfectly fair and accurate.
So how about this, instead of going on a tirade about my alleged dishonesty, tell me where I am getting yourr position wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The amount of mental gymnastics you’re going through to paint me as an anti-constitutionalist is astonishing. My two beliefs are and can be mutually exclusive.Do I agree with abortion? No. Is abortion constitutional at the moment? Yes.
No where in our conversation was the question posed about Ron Desantis beliefs regarding what Disney said. We were talking about what he did. That’s not mental gymnastics, it’s context.
And no I never tried to paint you as an unconstitutionalist, I merely pointed out a contradiction in your professed principals and what you were saying here in this thread. The point is to make you position here. The only one of us painting the other is you trying to make it sound like I’m attacking you by pointing out the error in your statement.
The point here is hypocrisy. Rules for thee but not for me. When Democrats tell everyone to not buy Goya products because they support Trump, all is well. But when DeSantis calls out Disney for their shenanigans, there’s an uproar.
First of all, who is “democrats”? Because the conversion is not about Twitter warriors typing in all caps and spreading memes, we’re talking about government.
When democrats who wield actual government power pass a tax on Goya products for supporting Trump, then you can compare the situation to what Florida just did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
That the OP attempts to frame the whole 1A violation controversy as unique to DeSantis’ actions should be an insult to everyone’s intelligence in this forum. IMO, DeSantis is just demonstrating that two can play this game…
When you caricature someone else’s motivations, the resulting picture is often pretty damming.
I never said nor implied that this abuse of power was unique to Ron Desantis. In fact I’ve said nothing about any other scenario.
I started this thread out of the fascination of two things:
A) That in addition to being so blatantly wrong and unconstitutional, what he’s doing also goes against the core principals the political right has been professing to champion for at least the past two years
B) It’s the political right that is defending this
These two things are an obvious conflict so I turn to the place which, sadly, offers the best and most intelligent rationalization of the political right I can find anywhere. But this is the best I can find; deflections (but Disney shouldn’t have these privileges), whataboutisms (but the democrats), and just playing stupid (any law that affects someone is retaliation).
If anyone here has a better defense I’m all ears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And I also refuse to believe you do not understand that all tax exemptions are rewards and all removals of tax exemptions are retaliations.
My god dude, you cannot be serious.
Retaliation: to hurt someone or do something harmful to someone because they have done or said something harmful to you
Do you understand what the word because means and how it relates to this example where as it does not relate to any other accepted practice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So you don’t believe in the constitution? That’s quite a stunning admission.You clearly did not read what I said. Take a look again.
Ok…
Do I agree with DeSantis? Yes. Do I think it’s constitutional? No.
If you agree with what Desantis did while admitting it is unconstitutional, then you agree with someone violating the constitution. That by definition means you do not believe in the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Neither do the Democrats when they say they will tax the rich millions of times every campaign cycle.And yet, where are the retaliation lawsuits of the rich vs the government? Nonexistent largely.
Are you even being serious or just trolling? There is no way you do not understand what retaliation is by this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the abolishing a rule (which isn't an accurate term since tax loopholes are specific exceptions to an existing tax rule) allows for the confiscation of more funds, that makes government larger in scope and power. What kind of delusion would make you think more taxes means a smaller government?
Read what I actually wrote and try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That bar is set extremely high if you look at cases won in court for retaliation vs the number thrown out.
It is a high bar. Thankfully in this case we know why Dessantis did this because he told us so. In an email sent to donors Desantis stated:
“Disney and other woke corporations won’t get away with peddling their unchecked pressure campaigns any longer. If we want to keep the Democrat machine and their corporate lapdogs accountable, we have to stand together now”
And then when he signed the law he said:
“You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re gonna marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state, we view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that.”
This couldn’t be any more obvious, he wasn’t trying to hide it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It doesn’t really seem like a big government action to get rid of a preferential rule implemented by said government.By that definition, wouldn’t closing tax loopholes also be an act of big government?
If the government is getting rid of rule it itself implemented, that by itself would result in a smaller government. But the act of making that change as a result of the government’s disapproval of the entity in question’s free speech means that the government is now the arbiter of what is allowed to be said within the free market. That leaves us with a far bigger government than we started with.
And BTW, the change we’re talking about is the government telling Disney “you can’t govern your own property anymore, we’re going to do it”. So how you start this off with the notion that government was made smaller by this is beyond me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the metric of a free speech violation is any government seizure, then every government seizure is a constitutional violation.
I’ve explained this multiple times throughout this thread.
The metric has nothing to do with “any government seizure”. You made that up.
The metric is when the government retaliates against any individual or entity who has free speech as a direct result of their use of it.
Let’s try this another way:
1. Government passes Law X
2. ABC Corp criticizes the government for Law X
3. The government takes adverse action against ABC Corp because of its criticism of Law X
This is the classic example of a free speech violation. Do you understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That being said, it doesnt seem like Florida is violating any laws... there is no right to a self-governing status for businesses. Basically, Florida has removed a privileged status from Disney. Disney can still voice their opinion though.
If the government is taking away a privilege you have as a direct response to your criticisms of them then that is by definition, retaliation, which is by definition, a violation of your free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do I agree with DeSantis? Yes. Do I think it’s constitutional? No.
So you don’t believe in the constitution? That’s quite a stunning admission.
However, as a finance major, the Board of Directors is clearly not upholding its fiduciary duties to shareholders by engaging on this issue. I’d argue that shareholders have a better case for suing Disney just based on decisions by the BoD and through them, management. I agree with YYW’s claim that as a shareholder, I’d be furious.
If you’re starting off in the position that free speech is not a real thing and that governments have the right to retaliate against companies for criticizing them then I would agree that the shareholders should be furious. But since that has never been a thing in the US, I would point my fury at the government who plainly violated the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
So to be clear, you are ok with government punishing corporations because their executives exercised their right to free speech?To be clear, I spoke exactly as I intended.
So that’s a yes. Ok, so I’ll be sure to add big government, government retaliation, and anti free speech to my mental profile of you for future conversations.
Irony.
It’s actually not. The liberal push to tax the rich is about raising taxes on *all* rich people in order to raise money for programs that will help out “the forgotten man” that Trump was supposedly all about. Whatever you think about that, no liberals are suggesting the government punish any rich person who dares to criticize what it does.
Why do I have to explain that difference?
Created:
The video speaks for itself, your reimagination of it notwithstanding.
Yes, it does speak for itself, and your version of it is nonsense. I gave you a detailed breakdown of what he was doing, what he was not, and how that compares to what we would see if he were actually doing what you claimed. If you have an actual response to anything I said you’re welcome to provide it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Parents of the children they are trying to protect from sexual grooming also don't have a voice because the Left is strongly against choice in schools. Free speech would allow a parent to remove their child from teachers who groom.
The whole grooming thing is such a stupid talking point fueled by homophobia and bigotry. Homosexuals are no more likely to sexually “groom” children than heterosexuals, and teaching kids to respect others regardless of their sexual orientation, as inappropriately as that might be done by some at times, is not grooming.
As far as school choice goes, the left is against it because the solution to a failing school is to fix the school, not to have all of the parents well enough to place their kids elsewhere vacate. This whole thing about picking schools to keep their kids away from learning about racism or the LGBTQ community is new and I must say ironic since it’s all the same people calling others snowflakes who suddenly put all of their political might behind safe spaces for their kids to protect their feelings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
You may believe the Right is cracking down on freedom, but I think it was actually protecting it against Disney if you look at the context of the education bill.
We can debate what the bill actually aims to accomplish and does, but that’s irrelevant to this. Whether you believe corporations should have free speech is also irrelevant to this. Currently they do, so that’s the framework we are working within.
And within that framework, the Florida government reacted to a company’s condemnation of their actions by stripping them of privileges they have be granted for decades. In the dictionary there is a word for this, it’s called retaliation. Are you ok with this? Yes or no?
This is one of those times where I have become so fascinated but also exhausted. This is really simple stuff and if a Democratic Governor did this I suspect you would be ranting about this way louder than I, and if it happened in another country we would be shaking our heads together at how despicable and corrupt the world is. So why when it is a Republican does this all of a sudden become complicated?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's being argued as true or false is the interpretation of the picture. Imagine going to an art gallery and being told what the painting factually means by some truth authority.
Except we’re not looking at a a painting, it’s a video. Which means we can actually watch what happened from different angles and in context. But that’s for people who care about reality and want to know what actually happened.
Created:
-->
@thett3
This specific story might be completely made up (I don’t know and don’t care) but you’d my point is that you’d never be able to portray a young candidate like that.
There are other candidates about the same age including Bernie, Hillary, Warren, etc. whom it would not work on either. It’s not about age, it’s about branding. Like I said, Biden does have his moments, but that’s how propaganda works. No one will buy it if fails the basic sniff test, but if you can find one kernel of truth and you combine that with an entire media apparatus fixated on painting a specific caricature, people will believe it. This is just the latest example.
Created:
-->
@thett3
But you should question why it’s so easy to portray Biden this way, and why things like this keep happening.
It’s called propaganda.
Biden certainly has his moments, but they don’t justify the senile old man who doesn’t know where he is caricature Fox News and right wing media have been obsessively propagating since his candidacy took off. The fact that this latest made up story is so easily provably false and yet is still spreading like wild fire through right wing America headed by their leading trusted “news” sources perfectly demonstrates that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because Russia was the core of the USSR and locations rarely change ideology. It's why Dixieland is more conservative than the rest of the country today; because that was the case 50 years ago.
That does not address the question. How does someone supporting Putin align them with the political left?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
6) She supports Putin, the leader of the country that was the core of the USSR.
Please explain how this ties into the political left.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Except that we know from previous actual handshakes of Biden's, look up his handshake with Putin from Geneva last year, that it isn't uncommon for him to have his hand angled in that direction on some level when he first offers to shake hands with people.
If we’re going to look at previous Biden gestures look back to the first presidential debate between Biden and Trump. When the candidates came out Biden made the same exact hand gesture towards the crowd, except he did it with both hands because they were both free unlike this time where he had a book in his left hand. This is just a thing that he does, which is what makes this whole thing so ridiculous.
It’s at about 29:30, or -1:34:53 to be exact (it’s only showing me time remaining)
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What are you talking about? Did you understand what I wrote? It was only 3 words
Created:
-->
@coal
He didn’t shake hands with thin air, it was clearly a gesture to the crowd behind him.
As soon as he turns around his hand is in plain view. If it were a hand shake his hand would have moved up and down and/or his hand would have closed around the imaginary hand he was shaking with. Neither happened. His eye line was also straight ahead, looking directly at the people behind him.
This is a basic test of Occam’s razor. Sure, it’s possible that in his mind he really was shaking hands with an imaginary person, but given that all of the things he would have done were missing and align more with a gesture which one wins out? Of course those who are already invested in the notion that Biden is senile would ignore everything I just pointed out in favor of the “gotcha”.
This is how propaganda works. Once you have successfully branded someone you can find examples of it everywhere.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you have to question whether or not rape or child molesting may or may not be evil you have a problem with evil in your own self.
Says a subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't get it. I can't get it. I am forced to zip my mouth in order to blend in with the left wing of this modern generation. It is so horrible because I am so proudly left-wing in basically all other ways.
On an individual level it is certainly possible to be against transgenderism without being transphobic. On a larger scale, it is hard to deny that the sudden obsession with transgenderism and its vast power as a political issue is ultimately fueled by anything other than transphobia.
I am prepared to give any individual the benefit of the doubt as they voice their opposition, but what I want to know is whether your opposition makes sense and is consistent with what you believe in any other respect, and also… why do you care about this? If those two things aren’t lining up I call bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What Ron DeSantis is doing is exactly what he should be doing. One power center is checking another.
So to be clear, you are ok with government punishing corporations because their executives exercised their right to free speech?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Disney has had a special privilege for years now that is being taken from it. It isn't a punishment to take away a special privilege.
Yes, it absolutely is.
The question of whether an adverse action is punishment has nothing to do with what the circumstances were at the outset. The question is entirely about whether the adverse action was taken as a direct result of the action it was responding to.
If I tell my teenage daughter she can go to a party that she has no business going to and then I rescind my permission because she got an F in math, I am in fact punishing her for getting an F in math. I don’t get to pretend it’s not punishment because she should not be going to the concert in the first place.
We can have a reasonable debate about whether Disney should have these special districts, but they’ve had them for decades and it was never a problem for Floridians until Disney spoke up against the new law. But because they spoke up, they lost their privileges. This is the most basic example of retaliation we could even concoct in politics.
What I find absolutely amazing is how fast the political right defends this, having lost all sense of reason and common sense. These are really basic concepts, nothing about this is complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
I wouldn't call Disney a private company. It's publicly traded.A company like Disney has a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. Playing woke politics with other people's money is negligent of that obligation. Woke politics doesn't make you dime on company time.Board of directors are not entitled to free-speech when their bound by the property rights of their shareholders and their duties to them.I am strong advocate for free speech but only privately owned companies and people outside of work have free speech.
Private, as in the private sector. These are not government entities, these are agents of the supposed free market.
I’m glad you agree that company executives have no business using the money of their shareholders for political purposes. Perhaps you will join the fight to eliminate corporate donations to super pacs, something people like AOC have been talking about for years.
Curious as to whether you take the same position towards all of those companies making political donations - that if government passed new laws retaliating against them for their political involvement, that this would be ok…?
Created:
Posted in:
Really curious to know what all of the free speech advocates here think about Florida using the power of big government to crack down on private companies for saying what they believe.
Discuss…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The argument is that based on nature of the violence, scale of property damage and consequential human suffering…
Except that non of the arguments for why Jan 6th was so bad have anything to do with this. It’s easy to minimize something when you disregard all of the reasons why it matters and focus only on the parts you choose to focus on because they are politically convenient.
Here's the basic premises:1. BLM was trying to disrupt/dismantle an instrumentality of the state's power, specifically the police. The BLM riots were an "insurrection," as that term is understood by American law.2. Evidence of the BLM riots constituting an insurrection is widely available, comprising among other things the level of violence, wanton property destruction and nature of their targets/objectives, as well as the intended effect of these.3. By any metric, the extent, scale, costs and losses which resulted from BLM's insurrection in 2020 exceeded anything that followed from January 6th.
All three of these premises are meaningless.
Show me where the individuals whom these rioters were taking their cues from plotted to overthrow the government and install their preferred leader in power and then we can talk about an insurrection.
The reason you can’t do that is because there was no leader they were taking their cues from. What we saw that summer was a nationwide grassroots uprising over a video captured by the public, shared by the public, and reacted to by a massive portion of the population. The rioting was a case of civil disobedience. That’s not an insurrection.
There is no indication of a coordinated attempt to disrupt/dismantle the state or any instrumentality of the state's power in connection with January 6th's events. There was no single coordinating entity behind January 6th nor any common/identifiable purpose beyond protesting what they believed was a "rigged" election. At most, a bunch of idiots from the midwest amassed in Washington DC, because of their delusion that Trump would have actually won the 2020 election if the votes were counted properly.
Nonsense. Trump was behind all of this. The rioters themselves have all made clear before, during and after the events that day that they were taking their cues from him. You not only ignore the endless trove of evidence that Trump was trying to overturn the election he lost, but you ignore the concept of stochastic terrorism and how blatantly Trump used it in this case. The idea that you would tell your supporters their country had literally been stolen from them, assemble them right outside the Capitol as the steal was in progress, rile them up with a speech about how they need to fight like hell, and then step back and nothing would happen is beyond preposterous. Everyone knew he was responsible as it was happening, why people now pretend they don’t will never cease to amaze me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Yet, a cohort of individuals seeks to redefine that word to make January 6th an insurrection while at the same time defining the BLM riots as being outside of it. In the best case, it's partisan hackery. In the worst case, people can't make sense of the world as it is.
While I don’t use the word insurrection to describe Jan 6th, what never ceases to amaze me is how obsessed the political right is with equating It with the BLM riots.
The reason one could reasonably think of Jan 6th as an insurrection is because the goal of those who ransacked the US Capitol was to stop the certification of a presidential election, and they did so because the POTUS signaled to them that this is what he wanted them to do. It was all part of an elaborate plot to literally take over the government by installing the loser into the Oval office.
Whatever you think of the BLM riots, nothing like that could be said about them. These are not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, there's a screening process for foster parents for a reason. That's the default.
Yes, there’s a process to ensure the prospective foster parents provide a healthy stable household. What we’re actually talking about is how we go about doing that, or more specifically what role someone’s genitalia history should play in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I did keep reading, all you did was outline why bulimia had physical health issues and then claimed that gender dysphoria isn't like that (when you have no reason to think so).
Name one thing I said about bulimia that also applies to gender dysphoria.
I asked because I want to know your standards, not so you can make a meaningless reply.
I gave you a meaningless reply because it’s a silly question, and the fact that you are asking me to explain how we determine whether something negatively impacts others should make you think about how silly this is getting.
When I used the phrase “the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else’s nose” did you understand it? Do you understand what would happen if I swung my arms and it hit your nose, and how that would be negatively impactful to you to the point where I shouldn’t be allowed to do it?
I know it seems silly for me to ask you this, but if this is the level of common sense we are disregarding then it’s a perfectly fair question for me to expect you to have to answer.
Okay, how do you determine if someone is of sound mind?
A sound mind is when someone is connected to reality, making decisions with a full understanding of the consequences and has determined that the outcome of their actions is still preferable to the alternative.
You keep saying that not affirming is wrong and then go on to justify non-affirmation in some instances.
And I’ve explained the differences in those instances. I’m not being inconsistent, you keep pretending it’s all the same when it’s not.
If someone going through affirmation therapy is harmed by non-affirmation then this means that they will always be harmed if you don't change all of society to capitulate.
It’s people like you who are the reason these people have to go through the stigmatization that they do in society, so you don’t get to pretend you’re the one looking out for them by trying to steer them away from making decisions that will expose them to that stigmatization.
Not really, have you ever heard of a modus tollens? If X then Y, not Y therefore not X? It is proper logic. Sometimes an absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
Yes, but your premise is absurd.
If X then Y - in other words if homosexual households were just as capable of producing a healthy environment to raise children (X), then there would be studies saying so (Y). In other words, the burden is on the scientific community to prove your unsupported claims wrong. That’s not how logic works. And as far as why it doesn’t…
The default position is that any couple is capable of raising a loving family until we have reason to believe otherwise.I'm sorry, why should that be the default? You can't just assert it to be the default and make it so.
Because the alternative is to presume no couple is capable of raising a loving family until and unless they prove themselves otherwise. That position would require every prospective parent in our society to have to pass some kind of clearance test before being allowed to have children. Is that your idea of how a society should function?
It seems more like you have your pet conclusion and are trying your hardest to interpret everything to support it. I am very doubtful that you actually are open to being wrong at this point.
First of all, if you actually paid attention to my point I said there is an alternate way to look at it. I never declared that to be the answer.
Second and more importantly, this comment demonstrates a remarkable lack of self awareness as well as projection. I am not the one who came on here declaring to have answers to what these studies show, you were . Yet you want to sit here and tell me I’m the one who’s biased because I’m drawing conclusions from studies that are inconclusive when all I’ve done here is responded to your points about them and why they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Look in the mirror before criticizing others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Because the two are nothing alike.As in one is bad for physical health and the other potentially bad for mental health?
If you wanted to know why I say they are different all you had to do is keep reading.
And what do you use to determine if it negatively impacts anyone else?
The same way we determine whether anything negatively impacts someone else.
When mental health issues are in play, how do you determine which ones you decide to affirm and which ones you don't?
When a person is making a decision of sound mind and it does not harm anyone else, that’s when I affirm.
And for the record, I am generally against anyone born a man competing in women’s sports.Then they already are not being treated the way they want to be treated, so what is the issue? How do you justify one and not the other?
Did you read anything I wrote? I already explained this.
The point is that I think that if there really was no difference when it comes to same-sex couples that there would have been very conclusive findings that did not have methodological issues by now, but that just is not the case.
You’re using the absence of evidence as evidence. That’s nonsense.
The LGBT community has no obligation to prove to you that they are capable of raising a family. The default position is that any couple is capable of raising a loving family until we have reason to believe otherwise.
That isn't just "not enough data to conclude anything", it is "enough data to conclude one thing is worse while more research is needed on the other factors".
That’s nonsense because there’s no indication of causation. If the raised anxiety and other issues were there before the surgery then of course that group would have been more likely to seek medical treatment, and if the anxiety issues were increased after the surgery that could be easily explainable by the way society (lead by folks like yourself) treat the trans community.
So in the absence of the data needed to fully understand this phenomenon we are again, just using the results to affirm our own biases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
We don't treat people with bulimia the way they want to be treated, in regards to their body image, because we know that it is better for them (physically).Why, then, should we treat trans people the way they want to be treated, in regards to their body image, if we feel as if doing so is worse for them (mentally)?
Because the two are nothing alike. Bulimics aren’t just people who have a desired weight which the rest of us consider too skinny. Bulimics are always in fear of gaining weight no matter how skinny they are and are always fixated on how fat they are regardless of how disgustingly skinny they get. Even setting aside the physical objectively verifiable harm they are doing to their bodies (which is no throw away point here) these are people whose emotional disorder is clearly and objectively causing them to live outside of reality.
There is nothing like that with the general trans population, caricatures aside. So for you to pretend that the two are the same continues to make my point on why it’s so insulting and condescending to act as if we should all treat them like mental patients for their own good.
Let's say that we treat someone that is MtF the way they want to be treated. If they want to play competitive sports do we let them? Are we forced to deny the reality of sexual dimorphism in order to allow them to compete? If not, then we already aren't treating them the way they want to be treated.
The freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else’s nose. So when I or anyone else talks about treating others as they want to be treated we do so as long as it doesn’t negatively impact anyone else.
The question of what sports they should be allowed to play is an entirely different conversation. And for the record, I am generally against anyone born a man competing in women’s sports.
Then it comes to question how well the mental health of children raised by trans parents will be in the long run. I am bi myself and am fully willing to admit that there are enough studies to raise doubts on if children raised in same sex homes have the same outcome as traditional homes (nothing is yet conclusive).Now a question needs to be asked about the same in regards to trans parents
If there is nothing conclusive on same sex homes then why does the question “need to be asked” with regards to trans parents?
I am fully willing to change my mind on if affirmation is a workable treatment, are you willing to change your mind that it isn't?
Of course, but as your own source stated; there isn’t enough data to conclude the impacts of these treatments. Which means that we are both just working off of our own biases, which is why I take issue with it. My inclination is to let them live how they want and treat them as dignified human beings. Your inclination seems to be to treat them as if they are crazy and/or delusional while denying them the simple ask of respecting how they want to be addressed because you believe without any valid evidence that your approach is better for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I think that non-affirming therapies work (did for me). They are used for every non-gender related body dysphoria because they work, and so why think they wouldn't work for gender dysphoria?
Because “I don’t like my tits, they’re too small” is not the same thing as “I don’t belong in the body I was born into”. But setting that aside, I don’t take issue with the idea of therapy here, I take issue with people arguing that the way to help these people is to deny them a dignified existence by treating them how they want to be treated. If they want therapy, then by all means. If they don’t, that’s their choice.
I don’t know much about your political leanings but it doesn’t escape me that most of the same people advocating against letting these people live their lives how they want are the same people constantly advocating for all of their political ideals under the mantle of freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yes that is my idea of how it works. What’s so inconceivable about it?
You’re arguing that the need one feels to change their sex is dependent on what the people around them have to say about it. I’m sure any trans person would find that preposterous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Well if not affirming them leads to them not cutting off their dick and becoming comfortable in their body…
Is this really your idea of how this works?
Created: