Total posts: 150
Posted in:
Okay, being blunt, I am replying to that little blue dot. Right now, I either need an ELI5, or I need to get back to this when Kona stops making some fantastic IPAs.
Which would you prefer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Dude, I have having some beers on a drive by.
-adjusts his spectacles-
Okay, unchanged, the reporting should be anon, to, but verified by a secondary party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I vote yes, voting should be anonymous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No sir. The reason is that idiot liberals keep shipping in busloads of terrorists who then either kill citizens...
And we 'ship in' many hundreds of thousands that don't, never will, and serve America to its ends. Fear is such a devalued coin, I am surprised you keep trying to spend it.
Yeah. And you the other liberal apologists will keep spouting that line even as women are raped and people are killed.
Predominaty by "true Americans" were I to understand you correctly. Immigrants disproportionately commit crime in general. They mostly leave it to te natives.
The prisons are....
Its just unfortunate reality that you can't actually demonstrate it, and instead blame some one else for your ill founded assertions. Sorry 'fear' is not currency.
No sir. If there were more than 500 terrorist incidents in 2017, listing 6 out of that 500 by right wing extremists as "evidence" of right wing extremism is exactly the kind of obtuse stupidity countries all over the world are rejecting.
And if there were more than 37,000,000 million legal immigrants in the US that didn't do anything illegal, you can keep your ....what? 1.3 to the -5 incident of occurrence, assuming (as you seemingly don't want to say....) that those 500 incidents are world wide occurrences? Yeah, to quote Yoda, "There is much fear in you."
Well, do you think it does? Or will you dodge that one too?
Answer it again, you mean.
Since you were unable to connect the dots: its the conservatives that are currently committing the acts, by and large. Clearly, if God is being 'driven out', the thing that makes the most sense is to show how wrong everyone else is by doing his will.
Preferably with some variety of explosive, firearm, or in the more civilized societies, legislation. That'll teach those Godless heathens.
There is no reason to import 3rd world killers into the country, and certainly not in such numbers.
Arbitrary benchmark is arbitrary. Current conservative administration in the US has clearly demonstrated that the morality of such a dilemma is clear: do we make money? The answer is yes. Keep them coming in.
You can run if you want, but you can't change the topic.
I agree. And I have no desire to.
I will leave the topic to you: immigration or "God being driven out of society.". Please choose wisely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No sir. The reason is that idiot liberals keep shipping in busloads of terrorists who then either kill citizens...
Is both irrelevant to your original suggestion, and assumes truth despite being demonstrably false.
2nd and 3rd gen are far more likely to be violent than real Americans
Fully explains why the prison system is full of 'real Americans' rather than a proportionate number of 2nd or 3rd gens, I suppose.
If I listed for you all the non-right wing killers, one thread page would not be enough. So ease up with the fake listing.
'Fake' listing? Sorry sir, you may dismiss, you may hide, you may run, and you may deride, but in the end, it still leaves you 'wrong'.
It started here:
It has nothing to do with God being driven out of society. Nothing at all.
You end here:
There is no reason to import 3rd world killers into the country, and certainly not in such numbers.
Do you care to return to your topic?
Created:
Posted in:
Never. Theist never precludes liberals.
Unless its a conservative doctrine, of course, of which Islam and Christianity qualify. That is the context currently at play. At least until a Wiccan shoots up... anywhere, really.
It dealt with why they were troubled and why that trouble should result in mass murder.
And that reason solely lay with them, and their personal outlooks and feelings, then trying to square it up with in many cases, a sense of right wing authoritarian resolve.
Who brought the nice Isis moron here?
He was born here, Ethan.
You should also lament the fact that some one whom should not have been here in the first place was given a pass to be here.
The person... born on US soil... had no right to be here, regards to Pulse. In the mean time, the most recent shooter, the Marine (you know, the liberal poster child...) should... what? Timothy McVeight (another military mass murderer) should... what? and Charles Whitman should.... what? David Patrick Kelley should.... what? Nikolas Cruz should.... what? Hey, news flash, right now, the number one commiter of hate crime (and that which can be construed as mass murder) are um... oh, yeah, "rightwing". Ya glossed that point, and they are citizens.
All you know to do is lay flowers and condemn guns
When? Please, find a post in which I have condemned guns. Should be pretty easy, given my post history here and on DDO. Since you aren't going to, and need to be spoon fed, let me help.
"I really don't care if people own guns".
Automatic, "assault" weapons, heck, if some one wants to shell out the dough for a SRAW, I only ask that the ordinance on hand at their home be dummy ammo, due to storage concerns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Theist does not preclude liberal.
Generally, no, specifically in terms of the conversation, yes, in so much as the religions at large are Judeo Chrisitan or Islamic. Those are not 'liberal' collective.
I did not say they were liberal.
What you say is irrelevant. What they were, however, is, and at first blush, the collection of ideological murderers (include mass ones...) leans conservative by body count and perpetrator in recent decades.
What they say is not necessarily truth.
By what context?
It dealt with why they were troubled and why that trouble should result in mass murder.
To which you then blamed 'liberals', as though ISIS shooting up a gay nightclub might some how be justified.
So you will block any conservative solution, all the while wailing at the people dying.
Which solution was that, exactly?
Who imported them? Didn't you tell me the immigration was worth the deaths? Yet here you are, overflowing with crocodile tears.
I lament the fact that some one whom should not have owned a gun was given a pass to own one. I have no need to address an issue you just thumbed your nose at, and brought no real substance too, "judging a majority by the actions of a minority" is bad policy, end of.
All you know to do is lay flowers and condemn guns. And stupidly wait for the next massacre while you condemn conservatives.
You are clearly not up to date on my stance toward "Gun Control".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Is it really pizza without cheese? Meh. The soy alternatives a great for putting in salad or a slice in a burger after the patty won't melt it, you know as like a non melting topping. When it tries to melt, it like... Seperates. Like salad dressing before you shake it. It then tastes like it looks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It has nothing to do with the current liberal attitude that life, and indeed nothing, is sacred, that morality is decided by personal tastes, that PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY is paramount. It has nothing to do with our culture of immediate gratification, or our belief that we are entitled to whatever we want, and that every desire of ours is in fact a right.It has nothing to do with God being driven out of society. Nothing at all.
Ooof, this one is too easy.
1) An immediate swath of mass shooters can be negated from being liberal in so much as they swore allegiance/acted on behalf of theocratic interests. Not liberal, quite literally acting on behalf of what they think their God wants.
2) With precious few exception, nearly every mass shooter was known to be a troubled individual, or some one close to them -knew- of their issues but told no one.
3) 4 mass killers that we know of have been trained by the US military. We taught them to kill, and preferably not have a conscience about it, 2 of them were reviewed and/or asked for help but were denied.
Right now, the only real 'trend bucking' issue is the dude in Vegas. Virtually ever other series of shooters that were not imported has a mental profile akin to 'dangerous', but no one batted an eye, and those that we did import, were willing agents as 'the hand' of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It is, and it sucks, especially if you develop it over time.
I love pizza. I can really only enjoy pizza if I am going to be alone, and depending on the quality of the cheese, in range of a WC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"We came unarmed.... this time".
Yeah, tell me another one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I can't say I disagree, though the SoE for the state (Derek? Derine? Something like that?) should have been proactive election night, and stated that a recall seemed likely, rather than dragging his feet on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Given the number of speed related deaths per year vs death by irregular/non-regular guns, I think you found your hill to battle and die on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The KelTec PLR 16 is a pistol chambered .223. It needs an undermount accessory for stability if anything after the first round actually needs to hit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
doesn't the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in keeping them legal?
No, it doesn't.
where are the examples of where an AR15 was needed over a regular gun when it come to self defense? i dont think i've ever heard even a single instance.
The Hollywood Heist, the Sutherland Springs incident.
killers blow holes in their victims that ensure nothing can be done with them, given how the bullets blow large holes and inflict much damage.
The bullet fired is a .223, the damage it does in close ranges is comparable to a handgun. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/ryan-finn/sheetrock-penetration-testing-take-1/ Here is a collection of typical patterns from weapons firing through sheet rock. The 9mm (a popular handgun) is indeterminable from a .223 (the AR style platform).
"but i also see that if you do the math yourself, it looks like people are more likely to use an AR15 in a murder than a regular gun"
Define "regular gun". A gun is intended to fire a projectile, and ultimately kill/neutralize its target. The AR15 is an efficient tool to that end. In addition to murder, its also a popular platform for sport hunters, given it offers good accuracy and stopping power at mid range hunting distances against specific game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I think the plan is to "ignore it", not explain it, cause apparently the founding fathers are linguistic hacks, or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
"I figured this was what you were going to say, but this interpretation makes "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "naturalized" superfluous and redundant just as an interpretation of "universal birthright citizenship does", as i outlined directly above." ---
So, lets do this the hard way.
"All persons born....."
That being anyone, "all", inclusive of 'illegally or legally' present.
"or naturalized..."
having gone through the formal process of becoming
"in the United States..."
1) The various states of the republic...
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
and 2) those territories, commonwealths, military bases, etc
"are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"
Now, you call it redundant, I call it explanatory, and you call it superfluous, though I am sure there are quite a few military brats that are happy to know their citizenship is assured.
Ta for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
"Korematsu v US" You mean the case that was decided so poorly the DOJ literally apologized for it? That case has been known as a cautionary tale. Anyhoo, the 14th is pretty much what caused Dred Scot to be overturned, as it was effectively new law intent on being retroactive.
Anyhoo, strawberry tarts are objectively sweet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
You mean explain to you why the totality of US history up to this point, as well as various interpretations of the amendment in what is now settled law is wrong, and your new outrage of what you consider superfluous is correct?
Sorry again, chum. I can't assuage your personal preference. I might as well convince you why strawberry tarts are objectively sweet, however I will say this: 'subject to the jurisdiction there of' very well might have been a grammatical extension of what is considered US soil, that being consulates, territories, and common wealths.
Created:
Posted in:
"You're conflating two things that are different. Citizenship being conferred to children born of citizens, is a wholly different standard than it being conferred to children born of non-citizens but legal permanent residentsb beyondthat, non-citizens present illegally differs even further. " --- I don't think I am. The amendment in question doesn't make mention of either of those, so whatever two diversionary tactics you would like to present from that I leave you to play with. The language of the amendment is clear and unambiguous.
"Two citizens conferring citizenship to their children by birth is the overwhelming standard across the globe"--- I agree. The same holds true of the US, two citizens giving birth abroad birth a citizen. Again, I fail to see why this is even close to the topic at hand, in so much as the amendment is talking about US soil.
Illegal immigration is your bag, not mine, whatever you would like to poor out of it is your further distraction.
The language of the amendment is clear and unambiguous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Don't worry, I am sure you will get it.
Eventually.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
.... so, "birth" is the short answer.
Because both of your parents were born, and both of those parents were born, and both, etc etc etc.
Sorry, chum. "Its turtles all the way down" is not an answer to the question of how you became a citizen.
Care to try again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You make it sound like a collection of rich white guys, some of which whom owned slaves and had immediately vested interests in a local government rather than a distant monarchy shouldn't have been building a government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Same question to you, then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Are you a citizen of the United States, and if so, how was such a citizenship conferred?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
" If you follow the causal chain back to the eternal God there is every reason for consistency in such a worldview. From the mindful come other minds; from a logical reasoning Mind comes other such minds; from intentional self-existing Being comes other intentional beings. Consistent throughout from the Christian worldview." ...
So God mind's came from......?
Or is 'because God' the proverbial 'out' and the logical chain you created may be broken at the first link it attempted to forge?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, please, by all means, pretend some one whom is under the influence of meth can rationally control themselves.
Step up to the mic, go for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"People should have the right to choose to be stupid as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."
Of which, materials designed inherently to alter one's consciousness, alter one's perceptions, and inhibit rational decision making invariably would result in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It is interesting, but assuming conspiracy, a vast quantity of people sought asylum in Mexico, nearly 20% of the initial size of the caravan to begin with. Were this a funded operation, its interesting that such a percent decided to call it quits there.
In any case, casually, how much review of migrant caravans have you conducted to form your opinion?
Reviewing the immigration crisis in Europe, there were plenty of instances in which huge numbers of people (looking akin to locusts as they traveled) were filmed going from point A to point B, leaving various detritus and trash in their wake.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, there are camera crews seemingly everywhere. One would think if they were being lodged some place that wasn't innocuous, it might be televised.
And lastly, whom benefits from a huge splattering of migrants at the US border? 4k people won't make any appreciable voting difference, assuming they all some how infiltrated, and Trump already has an immigration nightmare regarding children in detainment camps in the desert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"The worst that could happen to me is to have my daughters, whom I would shield with my life, look at me like a rapist and a lying drunkard, causing them to doubt my Master and King because of lies said about me. That would be a horror I would not soon get over."
Snow flake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"What is unverifiable is imaginary (the realm of metaphysics and not science)." --- I didn't say unverifiable, I said beyond concise terminology. I'm not gonna try and send a rescue mission into Plato's cave, here. A chair can come in thousands of shapes, sizes, and descriptions, and simply stating "a thing you sit in or on" doesn't cover it either, but people don't cross reference some internal lexicon to identify a 'chair' when they see a piece of furniture to see what functions match up to a terminology.
"So would it be fair to say your concept of free will requires planning? Would this include animals that lie in wait for prey?" --- Some, yes. Others, no. Filter feeders don't really have an apparatus by which to cogitate on their surroundings, and they sit still as food wafts into them. Spiders have a free-will in so much as they plan where they can lay a web for best results, some birds sculpt tools, etc.
With regards to your input on objective reality, you are speaking out of my paygrade, but the wrap up I like. When I say that there exists an objective reality, but not on the whole, I am referring pretty loosely to an objective recognition of reality on the whole, one of the basal assumptions of existence. Reality exists. We recognize that. Aspects of reality can be quantified. We recognize that and adapt. While opinions of descriptions may vary (Hot/cold, heavy/light, teal/pale blue), there is an objective standard to it (degrees, mass/weight, frequency) that doesn't need our common parlance description in order for the impetus for the description to exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Would it matter? There is a certain threshold the bread winner can't stoop too. Its simply household numbers. a 25 year old can. Hell, call them the same age, same skill sets, one has a family, one doesn't. Who do you think is gonna win that bidding war?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It wouldn't really matter, would it? If you are claiming "labor competition" to effect pricing, the obvious answer is to go with whats cheaper. Don't plead out 'oh, but mah skillz!' now, that is the entire reason why you are having to plead competition in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There wouldn't be a society, either. A single 18 year old will always beat out for employment a married mother/father of three with a stay at home spouse, all skills being equal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, I don't. But being beyond description in concise or precise terminology doesn't discount existence.
Were I to sum up free will, it would be the understanding of one's circumstance, and the ability to influence one's needed outcomes through decided upon personal action.
As a for instance- a person whom knows they have hypertension but abstains or indulges in salty foods, appreciates the outcome of both decisions, and acts as they see fit with that knowledge considered.
Reality being objective on the whole is impossible, however certain aspects of reality can be standardized, we do this aspect pretty regularly in our lives, and it seems to work out pretty well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Much like definitions for God, how you define and apply those terms (not infinite, the other two) I think determines whether such logically exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
.... a company hires an illegal in the US for less money, and I am supposed to be mad at the illegal?
If you honestly believe supply and demand as an economics model, stop supplying jobs. They will stop coming over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I already sent you ten money.
But since there is no intrinsic value, I don't think you noticed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Considering it was five party talks with some of the most powerful nations in the world, I would be willing to say not many people were laughing.
Just to show you how great of a deal it was for the Iranians, they still wanted to back out.
Shall I top off your kool aide?
The world laughed at Obama, but gave him the Nobel.
The cognitive dissonance is mind blowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
If you assume your position true with no context or semblance of how said statute is intended to effect the general populace, anything is possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And the telling is that it was the UN, the bastion of the libtard mentality, thinking they are entitled to other people's money
That was highly relevant, and an excellent rebuttal that completely encapsulated...
exactly how lost you are at the given moment. relevance, please?
You wait. I'm going to check my high stocks again and talk to my daughter who just got a sweet job.
Sure, the trend continued... right up until about Jan of this year. Record highs occurred under the previous administration, you know. Well, probably not. Congrats to your daughter, its amazing what a ... oh. 2% difference in unemployment makes. Huh, what took her so long?
"You'd better tell China that you think China has spanked Trump. They are negotiating on the sly. Trump doesn't agree with the libtard position that it is right for China to screw us."
That is the difference between targeted tariffs vs retaliatory tariffs. Technically, if Trump thought half of what he said was true, he could make a case with the WTO regarding theft of intellectual property and dumping (of which I recall he has alleged). That would enable the US to place tariffs and at the same time prevent China from retaliating without drawing sanction. While I am not a policy wonk, that seems to be the the most a)diplomatic approach and b) unifying approach to demonstrate that you aren't a carnival barker and instead are a statesman that knows how to use the tools at your disposal.
The one you're butthurting about now.
Ah, another quality rebuttal. See what defending Trump gets you? Forcing yourself to being crass. You ran out of cards so fast, but to be fair, if you are defending the current administration, you weren't dealt much to begin with.
How he got those employment figures high is a mystery then...
Not if you look at the previous administrations unemployment numbers. Mid fives to 3 percent unemployment? You get on your knees for the Cheeto. 10.5 to mid fives? Psh. Fake news. Its funny, people kept asking how long the next republican in charge would get to blame Obama for the economy being crap. Whoops.
And you think the "right" of an illegal alien to enter America is worth the death of hundreds in terror attacks. Ugh. I'll take Trump thank you.
Voice in your head put you on that, or having a flash back? I haven't mentioned immigration, illegal or other in this convo.
They helped me. But since most libtards don't work but live off the govt, they got nothing. That isn't Trump's fault.
My bad, I thought you said unemployment was low, and last I checked, you can't make a median income gaming the system. Glad you got yours, though. Totes helpful to the US's economy that you and the fam get to strap on the feedbag at Sizzlers a few more times a year.
No votes for libtards this November. I like America.
He says from Ghana.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
She doesn't practice publicly, bro. How many straws do you think you can grasp at on this one before it becomes a compelling case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"The point is, Trump did not mean it as a joke and expected boos, not silence."
Boos would have inferred he was right. That he was laughed AT is telling.
".... The opposite of everything liberals claimed would be Trump failures (stock market crash/GDP drop/war/consumer confidence drop/high unemployment) hasn't happened..." Yet.
Trump needs to get spanked by China a bit more for us to see what happens.
"....It turned out to be a good landslide...." Once again, the point--- what land-slide? Trump touts accomplishment, and big shock, it was a lie. Or misinformation. Either or. You are sticking up for a con man. A charlatan. A carnival barker. Just don't be surprised when the flea circus doesn't actually have fleas, okay?
"...So what? .." Tax cuts are directly supposed to help people, not eventually get around to them. Bush Jr figured that one out with a rebate, though it was swallowed up in the economy being tanked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Or more likely to be a "clinical" psychologist you need all those things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"....and he said they weren't laughing at him but with him..." Yeah, no. Trump either thought his accomplishments were an appropriate subject of a joke or... his narcissism was met with shocked silence from some as the below citation references in article.
"As I said, "They were quiet because his success drives them nuts." --- that, literally is the joke. He has no 'success', in any real sense of the word. He could have been a bobble head and his administration would have gotten along swimingly, but instead he decided to open his twit-box.
His success is coasting off the Obama administration at best, hypocritical to the core at its worst.
"You have your own reason for the crowds behavior." --- That, and the the suggested reasons from those actually present.
"To get to the bottom of this mystery, we canvassed 21 U.N.-based diplomats and asked what they really thought about Trump’s boast.
Seven either declined to respond or dodged the question (“I wasn’t there”) because, well, they are diplomats. All but one of the fourteen who replied to the survey said the audience was definitely laughing at Trump. But three conceded that he eventually won over the crowd when he smiled and made a joke about it. One respondent challenged the claim that diplomats actually laughed at Trump. It was more of a “murmur,” the diplomat said.
"Well, I don't know. I was given that information. Actually, I've seen that information around," Trump said. "But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that?" he asked the reporter.
"... I don't know..." (re land slide victory). Let me educate you, again.
"I was given that information," Trump said. "We had a very, very big margin."
"Why should Americans trust you when you accused the information they've received of being fake when you're providing information that's not accurate?" Alexander asked."Well, I don't know. I was given that information. Actually, I've seen that information around," Trump said. "But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that?" he asked the reporter.
Hey, you and Trump both don't know about his 'land slide'. At least you are in appropriate company.
"The only one claiming he made a joke here is you..." And Nikki Haley, refer to a previously cited article as to whom that is, though on the flip side, Trump can't remember what he was talking about either, so at least there is that. ""I said our country is now stronger than ever before, it's true," the president said. "And I heard a little rustle and I said it's true and I heard smiles.""
"..And the more than $2,500 in my pocket feels pretty good. As I said..." --- Wow, that 42ish bucks a week works out to like... what, 5 hours of you working? Let me re-iterate: that does squat for your average American house hold, and such a number as you represent is well out of the median income bracket, most American homes getting a whopping 1K per year, tops. That doesn't help, Ethan, that is lip service. Unsurprisingly, the wealthiest Americans will benefit the most; IE those whom don't directly need dollars in hands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"Trump was asked about them laughing at him and he said they weren't laughing at him but with him.
The reaction Trump expected was booing. He is aware that the UN is full of libtards.
He just wanted an excuse to tout his accomplishments for his American audience. They were quiet because his success drives them nuts. But they can't counter it. Things like the employment figures and the tax cuts are empirical."
So Trump himself was calling his accomplishments a joke?
Dude, reality is different, check it out.
He touts 'accomplishments', crowd murmurs, unsure of what he is talking about, he says 'No, its true', doubling down, and the crowd laughs.
They are either laughing at his 'accomplishments' (that being the subject of his joke), or they are laughing at him trying to pawn of his accomplishments, which, again, is no better a joke.
This was akin to him trying to claim his victory as some sort of land slide, then quietly backpedaling that "they" told him that, and dismissing the reporter calling him on his claims (claims, as in, not a joke).
The employment figures PALE in comparison to Obama's drop, which, btw, are the same source Trump is pulling him from, literally within the first quarter of him sitting his rear in the chair, he claimed "sometimes they are real, and sometimes they aren't", which shows you just how objective he is about his fact polling.
Lastly, 'tax cuts'. Before I eviscerate this, please, illuminate what you think the tax cuts did for the majority of Americans that such should be lauded. In what meaningful way do you feel a single digit less than 5 percent cut will impact the day to day goings on of John Q. Public, as opposed to the reduction BY HALF of those other 'people' we call 'businesses'?
Created:
Posted in:
That doesn't address anything.
If by magical/logical fiat, you eliminate the concept of "rape", consent also has no meaning. Rape by definition needs consent as part of its existence. "Sex" on the other hand, doesn't. That means the logical "which is a better world" scenario is immaterial, as one world can logically exist, and one world cannot.
All that, however, is pettifogging to the core of the issue at hand.
The grouse is right here: "...but you aren't inconvenienced by having to determine whether or not your partner is willing....". 'Willing' is an incredibly subjective determination, one fraught with societal and loosely evolutionary ramifications. An intoxicated partner can seem willing, but... apparently but protections laws, are determined to be NOT willing despite every immediate indicator to the contrary. What is being argued is the codification of man/woman interaction, as though going to some one's residence after drinking a bit at a bar has obvious platonic inclination. Such is not the case. It defies common sense to know some one less than a date, get to their residence, drink a bit (more), and then claim the various sexual attempts were a surprise. Social sentiment trends against the sexually open and aggressive, and appears to 'protect' those whom feel their capacity to 'adult' was influenced.
Created:
-->
@linate
Alcoholics are more likely to drink if their is alcohol around them.
Kleptomaniacs are more likely to steal if they are in a department store.
A wife beater is most likely to gravely injure their significant other, and odds are they would use whatever is around them. This is a worthless study.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
" a world where there is no rape, but consent is validated every 8 seconds," ---
This is a logically impossible world. If there was no rape, there couldn't possibly consent regarding it.
Created:
Posted in:
Strictly by the numbers and dosages, it would be cheaper for a municipality to mail a series of "sampler" packs of fluoridated toothpaste along with the yearly water quality reports than it would be to install a fluoride system in their plant, maintain it, clean it, replace the parts, and order chemical.
Created: