Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You act as if you would be ok with, say, pro life or intelligent design ideology being taught in schools, but I don’t buy it, and other parents shouldn’t, either.
Intelligent design is pure quackery, and pro life is a purely political position. Racism and race relations is a part of life we will all have to navigate through. These are not the same thing.
I also said I was not ok with wokeness of the Robin Deangelo style being taught to my children, so I have no idea what image of my position you’ve conjured up in your head, but it’s not one I’ve expressed. I don’t even agree with many of her basic positions and find her book full of nonsense. What I’m criticizing on this thread is the disproportionate role all of this is having on our politics compared to the reality. It’s emotion over facts and reason, plain and simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am perplexed at why people think it's okay to blackmail people to be guinea pigs to a vaccine that already more than enough humans have taken for the human-trial phase of the vaccine to complete (which it never did, due to time constraints)
The trial phase is where we test the efficacy and safety of the vaccines, the people who take the vaccine afterwards are literally the opposite of a guinea pig. Your statement makes no sense, you can then guinea pigs yet acknowledge “more than enough” humans to the vaccine, so which is it?
We need to see if it in any way harms people and if it harms offspring that were conceived post-vaccine as these are actually specifically where those that have concerns are saying the harms are plausibly at.
There is no evidence it does nor any legitimate reason to even suspect it would. This is a made up concern by anti vaxx conspiracy theorists looking for anything to scare people out of taking it.
You can pretend and twist anything but it is 100% pro-freedom to oppose blackmailed vaccination when the vaccines are still in their preliminary stages
Over 7 billion people have been vaccinated, we’re way past the preliminary stages. And the blackmailing argument is just not serious. We just went through a pandemic that’s killed millions worldwide and almost 800k in the US. If you don’t want to get vaccinated that’s your right, but the rest of society has every legitimate right to take the appropriate measures to keep the virus from spreading.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Sounds like the identical argument for pro-choice of abortion. Funny, a lot of people were offended by that comment I made in another thread. Can't have it both ways, my friend.
I should have known when throwing in that last line that you would use it to wiggle out of the conversation. But whatever, clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about with regards to the “radical curriculum” you speak of. Reality be dammed.
We’ve been through the whole abortion debate. Principals are valid justifications when they’re sincere. Almost none of the people claiming pro freedom from vaccines had any problem over the past few decades with all of the other vaccines we all had to get before going to school, it’s only now that it’s being politicized that people care. It’s nonsense, that’s the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
A. There were people there who said Trump never did that lmao and the people who said he did are voting for Hillary ClintonB. Even among the people who said he did, they thought it was pompous rather than perverted
A. You can’t possibly have evidence or first hand knowledge of something never happening, so why you would listen to those who claim it never happened as meaningful when there were plenty of people there who say it did is beyond me. And the fact that one of the people saying it happened was Donald Trump himself, I mean you’re just not even being serious.
B. Donald Trump thought it was perverted. You know how we know? Because he said so himself. He literally bragged about it. But you’re free to go on and pretend whatever you like.
This is not even close to what Joe did to his own daughter.
Just other people’s daughters, including his 26 accusers and his bragging about sexual assault, all of which you ignore as you throw stones at the other guy.
I stopped caring about this issue years ago. One of the differences between democrats and republicans is that democrats actually care about the issues they speak out against. When Al Franken got caught he had to resign as have many others on the left, meanwhile republicans like Trump and Matt Gaetz not only keep on going but use the allegations against them to rally up the cult in their favor. The double standards and hypocrisy is sickening, and it goes to show just how little this has to do with sexual assault. This is clearly about red vs blue, full stop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
The issue, my friend, is that McAuliffe refused to recognize that parents have a say in school curriculum…You do realize that, yeah? Perhaps not, you've missed the point on four occasions.
It doesn’t take 3 paragraphs to make that point. You said a lot of things, then when I point one out to you you want to pretend it doesn't matter. But we both know what’s happening here, you can’t back up your statement so instead of just admitting that you want to turn the table on me as if I can’t read or comprehend. Except that I can. We all can.
Of course parents “have a say” in the curriculum. Do you really think Youngkin became governor because parents didn’t have a say? Of course not, that’s stupid. No one cares whether they had a say when they agree with the outcome.
They came out and voted because they didn’t like what was in the curriculum. Except that as you are demonstrating here, what they were actually up in arms over is complete and total nonsense. And when people try to argue a nonsense position the only way they can sound halfway intelligent is to make it a principal issue, just like when people say they’re not anti Covid vaxx, they’re pro freedom! No, they're just trying to own the libs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So why didn't Trump use the FBI to arrest Hillary for possessing the pee tape?
Well first of all the Hillary never had the tapes. The tapes alleged existence came from the Dossier, which discussed the *possibility* of their existence.
Second, even if she had the tapes, the mode of acquisition is what potentially makes it’s possession illegal. Stealing someone’s private property is a crime, opposition research is not.
I know Putin would surely have used his KGB to destroy threats to his Democracy. Don't we want to be a strong, tough Nation?
If that’s what you are calling a strong and tough nation, no.
Well Trump is a pussy for not using the FBI to eliminate his political rivals like a real politician.
Or, he doesn’t have that kind of power because unlike Russia the US actually has safeguards to prevent any one man from being able to do so, which is of course why Trump hates our institutions so much and has been trying to delegitimize and decapitate them since he came into office.
He could learn a thing or 2 from Putin and his KGB.
He has, which is why he’s running for another term. He now understands that he can get rid of all checks and balances by replacing the heads of each of our institutions with sycophants and by destroying the political careers of any politician who gets in his way. That’s why he’s calling for every republican who voted to impeach him to be primaried and why he’s publicly keeping score, to show them all that it’s loyalty To Donald Trump before loyalty to country.
Oh and let’s not forget his biggest lesson of all, it’s not about controlling who’s allowed to vote, it’s about controlling who counts the vote. Just replace all the Secretaries of State and local elections board members with Trump supporters and you can get into office no matter who wants you there.
Yes, he’s learned quite a bit.
Trump really was a weak dictator for sure.
Don't worry, he’s working on it. Turns out it takes more than one term to completely destroy the American experiment. Who knew?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
You do realize a public statement by an official is not “the curriculum” right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because it’s a security threat. If someone has her diary then there is potential for them to blackmail her and/or her father. That’s kind of important would you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Classic deflection as always
If the hypocrisy wasn’t so bold, so in your face, so shameless, and so ridiculous, I would be happy to engage in the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Parents learned just how radical the curriculum was, and they have obviously rebelled in large numbers.
Can you please explain exactly what it was about the curriculum that was so radical it propelled Youngkin to the governorship?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Would you put your kid next to Joe if he did that stuff to his own daughter?
You have a man who bragged about invading the dressing rooms of teenagers as your avatar, I’m really not interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah, so when you were asking for information on it, you are talking about information that would help you find out who the perpetrators were who stole it. Ok.
Nope, I don’t have any info on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Parents learned just how radical the curriculum was, and they have obviously rebelled in large numbers.
Can you please explain exactly what it was about the curriculum that was so radical it propelled Youngkin to the governorship?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
That didn't answer my question. CRT defines the terms "race" and "racism" in a very particular way. I'm asking how your definition of "race" and "racism" is different than how those terms would be defined in CRT. Saying that CRT goes "deeper" only shows me you are defining and using the terms in the same exact way, just with different levels of scrutiny in terms of identifying "racism" in society.
There are two basic types of racism; individualized racism which is about the individuals thoughts and/or feelings towards members of another race, and systemic racism which is about how the system discriminates against minorities. CRT talks mostly about the latter, I tend to use the term to describe the former. To my knowledge there is no difference in the way I’m using the terms vs CRT, it’s just a matter of context.
Does that answer your question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If you are largely unconcerned with the trends in your child’s education, you are in the minority.
We’re not talking about math or science. Race is a complex and controversial issue and it’s not going anywhere. Your child will be exposed to it and will eventually develop their own opinions on the matter which will be influenced by what they consume and who they talk to. If you’re not expecting and prepared to have those conversations with your child then that’s your failure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
How does your use of the terms "race" and "racism" differ from how they are understood in Critical Race Theory?
Race and racism are more surface level. It’s about basic differences between us, what these terms mean, how it impacts each of us, how we spot it, and our country’s long history with it which our history classes barely teach. CRT goes deeper. It examines the prevalence of it within our systems and makes the case that it is the most prevalent source of conflict within our society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
What many parents do not want is “anti-racism” (of the Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DeAngelo, Ta Nehasi Coates et al variety) taught to their children in lower school.
Neither do I. If I think teachers are steering my child wrong on matters of race I’ll steer them back. I’m not running out to vote for governor over it, especially when I’m so concerned about my life being destroyed by gas prices, inflation and my freedoms being taken away which I am so convinced the current administration is entirely responsible for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The whole "CRT isn't being taught in schools" thing is just a game of semantics, and I think you know that.
I do, and that’s kind of the point. The fact that people are so up in arms over a course that’s not being taught demonstrates that these people have no idea what they are talking about. If they actually cared to learn anything about race and racism they would be able to express valid criticisms, but they don’t. In fact they’re so opposed to learning anything about it that this issue catapulted Youngkin to the governorship. With all the issues the right claims we’re having with Joe Biden at the helm you’d expect they would have much bigger things to complain about than this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Virginia flipped red mostly as a backlash against rich racist whites by working class minority Hispanics and blacks.
[insert evidence here]
You are manufacturing a ridiculous reason for why Virginia flipped red.
Actually, I’m reacting to yours. In case you already forgot, your stated reason was “The BS of having a Blue state flip red over Jussie Smollet style race baiting”.
There is absolutely nothing remotely absurd about a parent insisting a child should NEVER be exposed to a racist CRT teacher who fundamentally treats students on the basis of skin color, regardless of the justification. Teachers who are instructed to racially segregate their students as oppressors and victims based on skin color as if it was the 1950's but with the colors reversed.
What’s absurd is characterizing this as if it’s anything more than anecdotal, or even more so as if this is an issue that should have had anything to do with the VA election. The democrats weren’t running on doing any of this and the vast majority of left wing voters reject it as well. It is, as usual with the political right, a completely fabricated bogeyman to scare right wingers into voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I do not "feel" ignored; you are ignoring; and I've quoted you verbatim explicitly stating that you've ignored.
Now you’re just lying, either that or you have reading comprehension issues. I already explained that when I used the term “ignore” I was paraphrasing your allegation, not characterizing it myself.
Also as I already explained before, the reason I don’t respond to every subpoint you make is because that would be (A) redundant since we are already discussing the same issue elsewhere, and/or (B) because you consistently want to branch off into several other conversations in addition to the one we are already engaged in. I gave you 4 sub points before and you responded with 11. I then cut that down to 4 more sub points and you responded to those 4 with another 11. Then I cut it down to 6 and you responded with 12.
If I play your game we’ll be here for months and accomplish absolutely nothing having no idea what we were even talking about by the time it’s over.
If you want to hear my response to whatever you think I’m ignoring pick 5 points and I’ll give you an in depth response to each.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's be clear here, this isn't really JUST about CRT.
It’s about a lot of things, but clearly at the center of everything is white grievance. Again, CRT is not being taught in any school in Virginia nor is there a serious push by anyone for it to be, yet this issue was so powerful that it was central to the republican winning the governorship. Why?
The response to this being so over the top is what makes it so telling. It isn’t just that your response to the purported issue is over the top, but that the further justification given for it makes it even worse.
You don’t just talking about banning CRT, but keeping any teacher who believes it away from your children (what that means or how anything remotely resembling that could ever be willed into reality no one knows). And you talk about tyranny as if it’s 1776 and not 2021. Losing an election is not tyranny. Disagreeing with your democratically elected government officials is not tyranny. School boards teaching classes you disagree with (if that were to actually happen) is not tyranny.
Such absurd characterizations and insinuations suggest there is more to this, just not something worth admitting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You could not have responded if you "ignored."
I was repeating your allegation. If you had bothered to absorb anything I said afterward you would have figured that out.
I’m not going to keep arguing this point with you, clearly you don’t think there is anything wrong with breaking up everything I say into individual parts so you can create 7 new branches of conversation instead of just focusing on the point, which is quite ironic since you accuse me of being the one engaging in rhetoric and talking points while you respond in one sentence clips. If you feel ignored that’s your problem, I will just respond to what I consider relevant to the actual disagreement.
All three branches are part of the same government. The DOJ is part of the government. If decentralizing power from one to three branches checks human nature to which a government is prone, then why wouldn't decentralizing it to 330,000,000 be just as, if not more effective?
It is decentralized to 330,000,000 people, that’s what we call democracy.
You're supposed to explain how this system of checks and balances curbs human nature among government officials, and why such a curb is impossible among your everyday individual.
Why would I explain something I never argued?
Let’s try this, do you know what checks and balances are and do you agree that a government should have them? I understand you don’t want a government, but that’s not the question. Assume for the sake of argument that we must have a government, what would you want that government to look like? Would you prefer a dictatorship?
I’m asking this because I seriously don’t know how to address your objection without being condescending. I’ve never met someone who didn’t understand the point of checks and balances, yet you act as if you don’t.
Democracies are fundamentally immoral. Why you ask? Because they are premised on coercing the suppression of minority dissent.
No, democracies are a realization of basic human nature. Winston Churchill famously said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried”, and at least so far he has been proven absolutely right.
In the absence of democracy all we see is one man rule, and that one man has no rules he must follow, no checks of any kind, and the only thing determining whether he remains in power is how well he instills fear into the people he governs. That is infinitely less moral than a democracy.
So the employment of "fear," the very thing you condemned as part of dictatorships and elemental to "human nature." So how does this service your argument that governments curb "human nature"? The government's exploitation of fear is better than another's?
I’m talking about the foundational source of authority.
What gives a democracy its authority is a sense of legitimacy that comes from its officials having won the majority of the vote in a free and fair election.
What gives dictators authority is the fear that they instill in their population not to cross them.
The fear that stops people from doing immoral/illegal things is an entirely different thing from the fear that forces people to accept an authority they would otherwise reject as the authority.
As opposed to I kill you, another holds me captive?
No, as in I am entitled to a fair trial vs. being subject to whatever justice anyone out there thinks is fair to be imposed on me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Parents don't want Teachers indoctrinated in CRT anywhere near their kids.
So you agree with my point then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah. So Virginia went red, which means we can put to the side the BS of baiting people based on race. Got it.
So let’s take a look at this notion.
The issue front and center in these elections was about the teaching of critical race theory in schools, which the republican candidate declared he would ban.
Except that critical race theory isn’t being taught in one single school anywhere in the state and his opponent has never expressed support for teaching it.
The most basic idea from which critical race theory is grounded is the idea that race is the most prevalent source of conflict in American life.
So to recap, the mere threat of teaching a course about race as a source of conflict in American life was so toxic that a private businessman was able to ride the fear and anger over it all the way to the governor’s mansion even though the class is not and has never been taught in schools ever before. If that doesn’t sound like baiting people over race I’m not sure what to tell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If you have no intention of responding to these questions, then communicate that explicitly and drop the points.
I responded to every single one of them. I just didn’t do so directly to each one because that would have been redundant, which is the very problem I’ve been pointing out for days now.
Your first example of a point I ignored what you asking me for an example of a scenario where non-binding arbitration would not suffice. Why would I answer that when we’re already having a whole back and forth on one (resolving a murder)? Or what issues would result from it (again, already discussed)? Or why your scenario is unrealistic? I gave you a whole two paragraphs as to how human nature does not work the way your system would depend on and yet you still act as if I didn’t address that. Follow the conversation. Take a step back and start thinking big picture instead getting getting swallowed up by every individual sentence and this conversation would go a lot better.
Government is a composite of people whose actions presumably reflect their human nature just as much. And since there is no "higher authority" what prevents government from succumbing to the "human nature" which affects the individual?
Government does reflect their nature, that’s the whole point. Human nature was the entire topic of conversation at the constitutional convention, our government was founded on the idea of a government that does not succumb to the dangers of human nature. That’s why we have power divided amongst three different branches, it’s why we have a house and a senate, it’s why our DOJ operates independently from the president, etc. etc. etc. If done right we end up with a system where everyone has a say, if done wrong we end up with an authoritarian regime. Looks like we did it right… for now.
That is not how morality works.
We’re not talking about mortality, we’re talking about a system by which society would function without a governing authority. You claimed those who commit egregious immoral acts would be held accountable and I’m asking you what mechanism would make that happen, which begins by answering who decides what is and is not moral in the first place.
It really was a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious - everyone, which really means no one. I kill you, your family comes back and kill’s me. That’s your system of dealing with this, because the idea of an accused murderer accepting the ruling of a non binding arbitrater and volunteering themselves up for jail time is absurd.
People’s will always act in their own personal best interests. What drives criminals to turn themselves in is the knowledge that the government will find them if they don’t. You take that away and you take away the thing that keeps our society from descending into completely chaos.
Then why would you allow anyone else to have authority over you if they are just as prone to their "human nature"?
Self preservation. It’s the reason why everyone in Russia follows Putin - because if you don’t you end up dead. How is that not the obvious answer to you? How do you not understand that this is how it works in every country on earth without a strong democratic government?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ask the 20 percent of Biden voters that…
It was your statement, I’m asking you. To what BS are you referring?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If human nature dictated that individuals couldn't engage social and economic interaction as determined per their own devices, why would grouping individuals together and calling it "government" be any less dictated by human nature? Wouldn't organizing these individuals make their human nature that much more dangerous? Please answer the questions directly.
I would if I understood your question. I don’t. Please rephrase.
I might decide that looking at my wife is an egregious immoral act and then kill someone over it.And how have you rationalized with respect to your condition and that of those with whom you interact that killing someone for merely looking at your wife maximizes utility and minimizes suffering?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I just made. It was a hypothetical scenario. Please address the scenario.
Does the family of the victim hire an arbitrator to rule against me?The family can seek damages through some form of mediation. Or the family can persuade those within your community to ostracize and outlaw you.
This is your system, so perhaps you can offer what form of mediation would work in the absence of a murder trial.
Well I say that I don't respect their authority, now what?You are your first and final authority; whether you respect the decision made from the arbitration is up to you. And as such, the consequences of continuing a dispute, like I've already mentioned frequently, is your responsibility.
In other words, nothing. I can do whatever I want, and so can everyone else. And it’s up to each of us to decide for ourselves who should be punished for what and it’s up to each of us to enforce it.
This can work within, say, a tribe of 30-40 people. This is not a recipe for a prosperous society. All you’re advocating for is survival of the fittest, and by fittest we’re not talking about those who have contributed the most to the well being of society, we’re talking about those with the biggest guns.
Human civilization has been around for over 200k years, a government of some kind will always form. Whether it be an Indian chief, a monarch, a dictator, or an elected politician, there will always be an authority over society. It’s just a question of which one is best. Personally, I’ll take the one where we all have a say. Fantasizing of a society without authority doesn’t change human nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
There's a difference between Binding and Non-binding Arbitration:
Of course there is, and non-binding arbitration is perfectly fine for some circumstances, but not for every circumstance. What your advocating for is a society without a government, so in your idealistic world there would be no such thing as binding arbitration. That's the issue.
Do you have a single example anywhere in human history where a large civilization has successfully functioned through such a system?Why does that matter?
Because the issue I have with your ideal scenario is that it is not realistic, so if you had a real world example you could point to that would be helpful.
The better question is: how does a dictator rise in a privatized society? If each individual is his/her own authority, then what power would a dictator have? Dictatorships are forms of government, Double_R.
Your argument completely disregards greed and the drive for power, some of the most basic elements of human nature. Dictatorships rise because an individual comes along who becomes the alpha of his group, who then uses a combination of charisma, loyalty, and promise of reward to get those around them to carry out their will. And as this individual becomes more powerful they are able to add fear to that equation. Look at what Hitler did in Germany, what Putin did in Russia, hell look at what Trump is doing here.
A system of government like the one you're advocating could only work if people feel assured that the system will continue to work, but you offer no source of assurance. You just presume everyone will respect everyone else even though we know objectively that this is not how human nature works. Even upon the threat of an authority that is far more powerful, far more resourceful, and far more relentless than any individual could ever be, people still take their chances to steal, cheat, and kill. Yet you believe in a system without that authority people wouldn't do far more of this? That's pure fantasy.
And who decides what is an egregious immoral act?It isn't "who?"; it's "what?" And that would be individualist moral philosophy.
Everyone has a different moral philosophy. I might decide that looking at my wife is an egregious immoral act and then kill someone over it. What then? Does the family of the victim hire an arbitrator to rule against me? Well I say that I don't respect their authority, now what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
My ideas which provide alternatives for the current hegemony of government is to privatize everything, even the resolution of conflict.
Do you have a single example anywhere in human history where a large civilization has successfully functioned through such a system?
Not even the slightest bit true. The only thing needed to validate the decision of the arbiter are the parties involved.How could this possibly work?It already does work.
No, it doesn’t. You’re pointing to arbitration systems that have the backing of the government, so if the party ruled against does not follow the ruling they can be held legally liable for violating their contract in addition to being ruled against. That’s entirely different from what you’re suggesting.
Let me ask it this way… under your privatized arbitration system, who is the ultimate authority enforcing these rulings? If I were to be ruled against, who ultimately ensures that I follow the ruling should I decide not to? (That’s all one question, since I have to specify).
In fact there are no laws cause you don’t accept government so is there any such thing as a criminal in your view?Yes, one who commits an egregious, immoral act.
And who decides what is an egregious immoral act?
And as an added question, how would a completely privatized society defend itself against the rise of a dictatorship?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"It's already paid for" is the lie only Democrats are expected to believe.
You mean like how tax cuts pay for themselves?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The chant is actually more about the pernicious gaslighting of DC establishment
And yet the people most enthusiastic about it are also the ones most fervently supportive of the biggest gaslighter DC has ever seen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
“How are we going to pay for that?” is a question only democrats are expected to answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Have I not answered your questions to your satisfaction?
No. Here’s an example:
If not, do you have any actual ideas on how a society should ensure it’s functionality and prosperityYes.
… ??? that’s it? Would you like to share any of them? This is the closest you came in the entire post…
If you disagree with a representative government then again, what is your solution?Private arbitration and dispute resolution.
What? How do you resolve issues with private arbitration? The entire idea of arbitration is that both sides appoint an arbiter to rule on a dispute, but that ruling is entirely meaningless without the law behind it and you don’t accept government as an authority so what are you talking about? How could this possibly work? What happens when one side does not accept the arbiters ruling? (Those questions are all along the same thread so no need to answer each individually).
And then there’s this one:
Do you believe criminals should be locked up?No.
Again… that’s it? Any thoughts on how we should actually deal with criminals? Just hand everyone a gun and expect no one will violate any laws? In fact there are no laws cause you don’t accept government so is there any such thing as a criminal in your view? Is there such thing as murder or just an unfortunate end to someone’s life that others can take retribution on if they should so choose? (Again, one in depth thought on this topic will suffice).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Watching right wingers amusement over this reminds me of watching a bunch of pre-teens giggling because someone said the word penis.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Doesn’t really mean much coming from a person who thinks public officials can be held accountable for their violations in office even after they successfully ran out the clock on their term.
Fixed.
Not that I’m surprised I had to, ignoring context is kind of a right wing specialty.
Created:
Posted in:
If not, do you have any actual ideas on how a society should ensure it’s functionality and prosperityYes.or is “I hate government” all you have to offer?Never stated, "I hate government." Hate is irrelevant.The argument is not that government is societyThen you never should have made it.the argument is that government is the means by which society solves its problems and imposes obligations amongst its citizenry.Government is a means not the means.If you disagree with a representative government then again, what is your solution?Private arbitration and dispute resolution.Do you believe criminals should be locked up?No.If so, who locks them up and under what authority?I don't believe criminals should be "locked up" so the question of "who" is irrelevant.
This is just pointless. If you have an actual deep thought, something that requires more than one word or sentence to be expressed let me know.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s been clear since Day 1 that a large portion of Democrats don’t like the Constitution.They hate that every state has 2 senators instead of a proportional representation like the House.They hate the 2nd AmendmentThey hate that the Supreme Court has life appointments.They hate the Electoral College.Etc
Your avatar is of a man who’s never read it and has demonstrated nothing but contempt for its most basic principals. But go on…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If there was no point in addressing it, then there was no point in making said statement in the first place. Exclaiming your American citizenship--and all that which followed--neither justifies nor explains the reason you should have a say in someone else's inheritance or Estate.
If you didn’t find that part of my sentence relevant to the point I was making then why single that part out to respond to it?
It’s as if you don’t understand what context is or why it matters. Thoughts and ideas are typically expressed in more than just one word or one sentence.
The people in government are the representatives they sent there in their behalf.Those "representatives" are nothing more than gang members who've risen through farcical electoral pageants.
Do you believe in elections?
If not, do you have any actual ideas on how a society should ensure it’s functionality and prosperity or is “I hate government” all you have to offer?
Or to ask it slightly differently… do you think you did all this yourself?Not the point. I have no qualms with "society." And I've not claimed I've done anything by myself. I object to government. Your conflation of the two is nothing more than delusion especially considering the binary political environment in and over which you and others frequently engage and argue.
What’s delusional is pretending they’re two separate things, as of one has nothing to do with the other.
The argument is not that government is society, the argument is that government is the means by which society solves its problems and imposes obligations amongst its citizenry. If you disagree with a representative government then again, what is your solution? Do you believe criminals should be locked up? If so, who locks them up and under what authority?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I read everything before I respond. My parsing your statements reflects particular points which I intend to address.
There was no point to address, it was literally half a sentence.
Non sequitur. My "liking" or disliking my being part of society has nothing to do with it. It isn't "society" I intend to undermine--only the government which subjugates it.
The government is a direct reflection of the society you live in. The people in government are the representatives they sent there in their behalf. You cannot coherently separate the two as of one has nothing to do with the other.
Taking advantage of which "perks"?
How are you communicating with me right now? Through what device, made by who, connected to what, powered how, and… how are you paying for this?
Or to ask it slightly differently… do you think you did all this yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s kind of like me using a pen to write “death to all whites”, then when I’m accused of being a racist, claim they’re just trying to attack everyone who uses a pen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are you pretending that this is about the torch itself as opposed to what the torch is being used for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Social security is the reason we have a lot less people in poverty. This is classic confirmation bias, you’re only looking at those who are still in poverty and ignoring those whom the government actually helped.
The reason you don’t get to opt out of social security is because your tax dollars are paying for today’s seniors, just as today’s seniors paid for the previous generation’s. That’s how it works, imagine when you become a senior the next generation decided to all opt out and plan their own retirements leaving you with nothing after all those years of paying into it. I’m pretty sure you’d have a problem with that.
Glad we agree on a bloated military budget.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I’m an American citizenSo what?
If you’d actually make it to the end of the sentence you would have a better idea.
which gives me the right to cast a voteWhich makes you an habitual member of a "gang."
If you don’t like being part of a society then move, or at the very least stop taking part in an taking advantage of all the perks that come along with it.
All of my neighbors vote and unanimously decide to rape me. Instead of condemning their acts as immoral, I should pick up and leave, abandoning my property--their society; their rules, right?
If the group I lived amongst decided to rape me, I wouldn’t be living amongst them. It’s not complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Or...C):Legislation originates in the House of representatives where Pelosi gathers all the proposals from all the DC lobbyists and makes a multi-thousand page monstrosity and declares it "the will of the people."
You made the claim that Biden isn’t authorizing anything. Do you have any evidence or argument supporting that position or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No, you didn't. This:We’re not talking about the man who made his fortune, we’re talking about the people who did nothing to help build it but yet will reap all the rewards.Is not an explanation of "luck."
Context matters. You’re entire argument about luck was focused entirely on the deceased. We’re not talking about the deceased, we’re talking about the beneficiaries. If you really need me to explain how one would be considered lucky to be handed a fortune they did nothing to earn, we have much bigger problems to address than estate taxes.
Tell me: who are you to dictate "how much is okay" for someone to enjoy their estate or inheritance before getting taxed on it?
I’m an American citizen, which gives me the right to cast a vote for the candidate who best represents my views on what US policy should be. Is there some other credential I’m supposed to have?
Your argument's impetus is entirely rested on the platitude that the beneficiary of an inheritance or estate is "lucky" to receive it
Please tell me what word you would use to describe that person.
Yes: like all taxes, eliminate them.
I suppose you don’t believe we should have a government then either.
Taxation is robbery
No, it’s not. If you choose to participate in our economic system then you are choosing to follow its rules. If you don’t like it move to a deserted island where you can live in isolation and do whatever you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
By "they" You must mean the lobbies that wrote the bill. Biden isn't authoring anything, and your insistence that he is (or has the capacity to) borders on fanatical delusion with the man.
Let’s try a very simple test of Occam’s razor:
A) The president of the United States is making his own decisions as to which legislation he approves
B) The executive branch of the United States government has been taken over by shadowy forces deciding what the president does while the guy who actually won the election and constitutionally has the final say in everything just pretends to be in charge.
Which of these do you find to be the simplest assertion? If A, you can stop here. We apparently share the same delusion.
If B, do you have any evidence of this?
If you do not have any evidence, please explain how such an assertion can be falsified.
If you have no evidence nor any practical mechanism to falsify said assertion, please explain the difference between an unfalsifiable unsupported belief and a delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Explain the logic of having a 1000 page bill written by lobbyists for 2 pages of infrastructure?Why do you tolerate this?
Biden made clear since the campaign that infrastructure was not the only thing they wanted in this bill. If you actually followed politics you would know that.
Created: