Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i have given many evidence
lol, so literally nothing is "many evidence"? that sounds about right for a trump cultist. not only do you choose to believe things without evidence, you make obvious grammatical errors while explaining how you are disconnected from reality.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can say the same thing about "systemic racism."
what? why would anyone do that? there are blatant cases of racism pretty much constantly. what kind of idiot would think racism isn't a daily event? whereas no one is able to provide any evidence at all of fraud in this election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I will never believe Biden won fair and square given all the irregularities and out right fraud that I have seen.
what fraud? what irregularities? So far you have presented none. And all investigations and lawsuits have found none.
You will never convince me that there is nothing to see here.
given that you have no intention of actually knowing what happened and only want to see what your cult leader tells you is there, there is no chance anyone could reach you as far as I can tell.
Nor will the courts because they refuse to even hear the evidence or listen to testimony from people under oath.
this is an outright lie. the courts have listened to dozens of witnesses brought forward in lawsuits. none of them had a shred of evidence that any fraud had occurred. most fell apart under even basic questioning because they hadn't actually seen any fraud and their allegations were based on misunderstanding how the process works. So they saw what was supposed to happen, but out of ignorance and a personal desire for there to have been fraud, thought it was fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Trump will concede when he is done challenging the results.
oh you sweet summer child.... trump will never concede. He already knows he lost. But he is going to fight it out and make millions and millions of gullible idiots believe he really won because he is planning on continuing to profit off those idiots. So he will never admit he lost. and if he does, it will be one of those things where trump admits something, then immediately says the opposite again. He does love doing that.
I like what he is doing, he isn't a quitter and fights for people like me who get zero representation in govt.
lol, oh yes destroying democracy so he can profit off of idiots, yeah he's definitely doing that for you....
The supreme court didn't even give a reason for not hearing the case they just tossed out
what? of course they gave a reason. The reason is that the entire lawsuit was without merit. Texas has no standing to bring a lawsuit to invalidate the results of another state. Everyone involved knew this was going to happen. It was not a case that was even possible to win.
Piles of evidence and they wont even listen to any of it. I think the election is rigged and you will never convince me otherwise.
this right here is the problem. You insist there is piles of evidence. but no one can actually produce any of it. Lawsuit after lawsuit has been tossed out because it had no evidence. The FBI and justice department have both investigated as well and couldn't find any evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. But trump cultists will never be convinced otherwise.
I think the FBI and the CIA are all in on it and I think China has them all in their back pocket. That is what I see, you tell me I don't see what I see and that I should listen to the very people I have zero trust in and have years of observations to justify that distrust.
ok, so you don't trust the government, sure I can understand that. So instead, you choose to believe con men like trump who have spent their entire careers lying and ripping people off. That makes literally no sense.
Your responses are blind faith opinions on what you want to be true you have no real evidence that the elections are not rigged.
this is a common one. You can't prove a positive (ie that fraud happened) but you choose to believe it without evidence. So instead you try to push responsibility onto me to disprove the thing that doesn't exist. IE, if I said sea monsters are real and you need to prove to me that they aren't. It isn't possible to prove that since we haven't explored all of the oceans.
That is essentially what you are doing. You, and everyone else, have no evidence significant amounts of fraud occurred. But you choose to believe it until someone can prove it didn't, which is impossible because you just assume anyone who provides evidence that fraud didn't happen is corrupt or lying.
there are however numerous videos showing it in broad daylight.
videos showing what? I've seen people post dozens of videos on here supposedly showing evidence of fraud. Every single one of them was stupid, was just some person ranting about something they claim they saw, or was completely lacking any kind of supporting evidence (ie someone being refused entry to a polling place, but they had no proof they were supposed to be able to enter.
So far no one has been able to provide me a video showing fraud.
Biden's so called victory with last minute votes is statistically and mathematically impossible.
what does this even mean? virtually all news outlets warned in advance this was going to happen. The mail in ballots leaned heavily biden because dems pushed people to vote by mail while republicans pushed for people to vote in person. in many of the battleground states, in person votes had to be counted 1st. so trump got a big lead on election day as in person ballots are counted, then that lead evaporated as the mail in ballots got counted.
Everyone knew that was going to happen. So why is it mathematically impossible?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
there was voter fraud
i keep seeing right wing people saying that, but literally no one is able to offer any proof of it. Trump and his band of idiots have started dozens of lawsuits trying to make something, anything, stick. And have failed pretty much every damned time.
So why do you still believe something happened when the people making those claims have been proven wrong every time they step into court?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
You do know how odds work? You can do something that might kill you a million times and not die if the odds of dying from it are 2 million to 1.
sure. and if the odds are 1% it would kill you, and you do it every day, odds are it would kill you before the year is out.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
while i dont like his stupidity of not caring about the virus, he has a point. the odds of dying in a car crash is .9%. last i knew, the odds of dying from covid is .7%, and that's only if you catch it to begin with. so, driving a car is more dangerous than covid. obviously precautions should be taken in both cases, though.
if he had made an actual point, as you have done, I would have been happy to rebut it.
As you said, driving is dangerous. But we have many, many rules and restrictions on driving to make it safer. Speed limits, seatbelts, stop signs etc. If you fail to follow proper safety procedures you can fined, have your license revoked or be arrested.
You can't make driving 100% safe. And you can't guarantee anyone's safety, vaccine or not. But proper steps need to be taken to increase safety. Vaccines are a critically important step to improving safety.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Yes, I do believe I take a greater risk of dying by leaving my house to go to work than the risk of getting covid and dying.
if that were true you would have died several times per year. So that is obviously just a lie.
More people die every day just leaving their house than those who die of covid.
since "leaving their house" is not something that has ever killed anyone, again, obviously a lie. and not a very good one either.
Don't quite know what right wing politics has to do with anything.
denying science. It is, unfortunately, a requirement of the right wing these days.
"All the evidence says they are safe." what evidence?
clinical trials. are you not even reading what I write or paying the slightest attention to reality.
there hasn't been sufficient time or a sufficient number of people to even come close to making a educated assessment.
doctors and governments across the entire planet say otherwise. but since some random dude with no medical expertise says so, obviously all the medical experts are wrong....
I have to this day never seen the govt do anything in anyone's best interest other than the govts best interest.
and getting rid of covid is in the best interest of the government. It is causing huge problems for everyone.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
"It isn't just about you. " Great, then I don't have to follow any stupid ass ridiculous govt guide lines
oh good, the battle cry of the right wing cry baby. WAH!!! I don't want to take medicine!!! i want millions to die so i don't have to take it.
I refuse to wear your FEAR AND LIVE UNDE THE TYRANNY OF YOUR FEARS for something that has a higher survival rate than walking out the door each day.
what?!!? you can't possibly believe that is true. even you aren't that delusional.
You didn't prove anything other than to regurgitate what you have been told to believe. You have no knowledge what so ever other than what you are told to repeat.
ok. so doctors and governments all over the world have tested the vaccines, and reviewed the tests of the vaccines. All the evidence says they are safe. but you, a right wing idiot who knows nothing about medicine, you know the "truth" about vaccines? this is just sad.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Guess you just can't trust authority these days.
which authority would that be? The lunatics on fox news screaming about fraud, but then are conspicuously unable to provide a single shred of actual evidence of it? You must be a real sucker to believe all that bullshit when every judge, every election official and trump's own justice department keep shooting down every lame conspiracy theory. But I guess when you are in a cult, reality really doesn't matter. Only the world of the orange man matters. and if he says it's fraud, reality (and democracy) be damned right?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it would actually be a major win for democracy that voter fraud gets shut down
maybe, assuming there was voter fraud. But even then, stealing an election by using the court to appoint a winner is functionally no different that stealing an election any other way.
But given that trump's team have launched dozens of lawsuits and have yet to show any evidence of voter fraud, that isn't the case. Throwing out a democratic election and having the courts just decide who gets to be in charge is the kind of stuff banana republics do. That is what the republicans want. They want to destroy democracy now that it is inconvenient.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am talking about the rhetoric of an illegitimate president and an illegitimate election.That didn't start in 2020.
wow, republicans really do have short memories. They spent the entirety of Obama's presidency saying he was illegetimate. Trump himself spent YEARS saying he was born in kenya and that he had evidence of it.
But yes, please tell me how trump is the victim of a trend he in no way massively fueled.... Man republicans love to whine and cry.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Are dead people allowed to vote? Are people allowed to vote more than once?
no, but since they didn't your question is irrelevant.
How do you count more votes than there are registered voters?
people are human and errors happen. They happen in literally every election that has ever taken place. That is no reason to overturn the results of the election.
How do states change their election rules without the benefit of their legislators doing it?
states have the absolute right to determine how their elections are run. If they didn't have the right to do that, then lawsuits would have prevented them doing it.
How are votes on ballots changed?
more conspiracy theory nonsense.
But, none of that happened, did it?
that is correct. Or at the very least, there is no evidence that any of it happened. If someone can prove these things happened then that would be a very different question. But dozens of lawsuits have been filed and no one has been able to provide evidence of fraud.
And Punter Biden did nothing, and neither did his fawning father, did they?
Hunter has been banking on his father's name for years. Do I think it is corrupt? absolutely. Is it illegal? So far no one has been able to show that it is. There are lots of loopholes built in to allow the families of elected officials to cash in. Don't think the families of republicans aren't doing exactly the same thing. Trump's family sure as hell is.
But, DJ Jr? He did it all, didn't he?
DJ JR is idiot. He is definitely corrupt. Whether or not he has committed crimes remains to be seen. But I'd say Ivanka and Kushner are worse.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I would oppose anyone who tried to overturn a democratic election.
impeaching a president for abusing the power of his office is not overturning an election. It is protecting the country. And since power would not actually go to the party (it would have been pence) it isn't overturning an election at all.
Trump is just outright trying to get the courts to say he is president even though the people voted for biden. That is treason in my book.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yeah, and that does not change the fact that most you call tyrannical are only so because you oppose them. It's getting old.
I would oppose anyone who tried to overturn a democratic election. Trump is trying to throw out the votes of millions of americans in 4 states. That is undemocratic, unamerican and, in my opinion at least, downright treasonous. The fact that the spineless republican party is going along with this obvious nonsense just highlights how all their talk about wanting to protect the constitution is self serving bullshit. Because now they have a man obviously stomping on it and they are just playing along to protect their own careers.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Total red herring you have 0 evidence that I am spready any kind of disease or virus. Prove it.
you are aware that there is record numbers of cases literally every day right? You might be spreading the disease, you might not. There is no way to know until you've already done it. Thus the only way to prevent you from doing is for you to be vaccinated.
Prove the vaccine is safe.
that is what clinical trials are for. They have been done.
Prover that it isn't a tracker and doesn't alter my RNA/DNA.
lol, prove that I don't have a transporter and will beam you up and replace you with an evil clone. You are asking me to disprove an insane fantasy.
I have no interest in injecting some unknown untested poison into my body for a virus that has the same survival rate as any other flu strain.
wow, there is just so much stupid to unpack here.
1) it is not untested. there are clinical trials it has to pass to be approved. that is the definition of "tested". So that is just a straight up lie.
2) it isn't poison, obviously. Anyone who could think that is delusional.
3) it does not have the same survival rate as "any other strain of flu". because a) it is not the flu, so phrasing it that way is stupid. b) it is like 10 times deadlier than the flu, so it is doubly stupid.
I'll take my chances, I am more likely to die doing 1000 other things than dyeing of covid. Prove I am wrong on that also.
Ok, but that's like saying other things might kill you, so you should be allowed to drive drunk. It isn't just about you. This is something you should have been taught in kindergarten. You might get covid and be totally fine. But you would then probably end up spreading it to people who could be permanently injured by it or even killed. In your opinion, you seem to be fine with death and injury to other people in order to avoid being minorly inconvenienced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So you see absolutely no evidence of voter fraud?
none has been presented. There have been dozens of lawsuits about it, virtually all have either been thrown out or withdrawn. none have been able to show evidence of fraud. So the question is, who actually does see evidence of fraud since no one has provided any?
Nothing even worth looking into?
of course it is worth looking into. And that is exactly what people have been doing for the last few weeks. There are entire government departments designed to do exactly that. It has been looked into, it will continue to be looked into. But until someone is able to actually prove it exists, why would anyone think it idid?
What if the shoe was on the other foot? Biden would just concede right?
no other president has ever done this. So if the question is would Biden sabotage democracy to protect his own fragile ego, I would have to go with no he would not do that. He would concede. Just like hilary did. Just like all the other presidents in modern history.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
as the law suit argues, it's not so much specific examples of fraud, it's that the current system allows for the possibility of loads of undetectable fraud.
basically the suit is that since there was fraud (even though dozens of lawsuits have been thrown out because fraud didn't happen) the results of the election in those states should be thrown out and handed to the republicans. But those cases of "fraud" have already been litigated and thrown out. So the odds the Supreme court even take the case are extremely low. They already refused to take a case where the republicans wanted the results in PA to be thrown out.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
So, by definition, a tyrant is anyone who disagrees with you? Big crowd. Shame on us.
no. there are lots of things that are tyrannical. But in this specific instance it is that trump lost and is now trying to steal the election using legally trickery. Trying to steal power after losing a democratic election is tyranny.
And honestly, what is going on might actually be worse than that. Virtually all the republicans (the elected officials not necesarily the republican voters) know that trump lost. They know there wasn't widespread fraud. They are just too afraid of Trump's crazy ass bass to say so. The people who actually carried out the voting process in the contested states (many of whom are republicans) who dare to admit reality are having their lives threatened by right wing nutjobs who honestly believe that trump won, even though all available evidence says that is a lie.
Even trump knows these are lies, but he can't admit it. Both because his fragile ego demands it, but also because he wants to profit off the fanatical support of his base. He plans to spend years milking these people of every dollar he can and using their support to milk rich political donors too. Trump is actively working to damage democracy for his own personal profit. It is disgusting.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
The govt can take both and shove them strait up their collective ass
Thank you for highlighting the portion of the population who are dumb enough to refuse the vaccine and choose to continue spreading a deadly disease. It is good to remember that such people are real as they are a serious problem.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
there's a lot of people that we can't know about that has immunity, had it and beat it with no symptoms.
that statement is inaccurate. There is insufficient evidence in this area. There have been cases of people getting covid more than once. So there is no guarantee that getting covid confers immunity. And even if it does, we don't know how long this immunity could last. it might be lost after a few months.
This is no replacement for the vaccine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
A bitch would have conceded already.
no. a real man knows when he is beat and can acknowledge it. A bitch whines and cries. He goes running to his mommy, the referee, anyone who will listen that it isn't his fault he lost. It is cause the other guy cheated, or the sun was in his eyes, or whatever other lame ass excuse he can come up with.
Trump is going to push every lame conspiracy theory he can. And one by one the courts are telling him he is an idiot. He has lost dozens of court cases. And every time the courts ask him where his evidence is, he fails to provide any, and they toss his ass out of court. This is probably the saddest series of bitch moves in the history of bitch moves. I can't imagine how his response to losing could be any whinier or weaker.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hopefully he wins
if he did, it would probably be critical damage to democracy. Basically the argument is that Texas doesn't like how other states voted, so they want the courts to overturn the results. If that works, then no election is really decided by the people. The election ceases to matter because the courts can just overturn the results on a whim. That isn't democracy any more.
Basically, republicans want to end democracy to protect a tyrant.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep. No problems with the sweetener, but how much of a sweetener will be needed to convert the hardiest of anti-vaccers, do you think.
there will always be a certain group of people you cannot reach. There are people who ardently believe that vaccines will give them autism, or are part of some global scheme to mind control the population. People like that can't be reached. No amount of evidence or logic will ever convince someone who wants to believe in a global mind control conspiracy.
But (I seriously hope) most people aren't that far gone. They might have concerns about vaccines, some of which are warranted, most of which are not. But information proving their safety and effectiveness combined with a direct incentive would hopefully be enough for most people.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
But driving a car whilst under the influence of alcohol, is obviously not a sober choice
I disagree. People usually don't enter a scenario where they are drinking without knowing they will be drinking. IE if you are going to a party, you know you are going to drink. Therefore before they start drinking they should know how they are getting home. Alot of people who drink and drive more than once or twice know going in that they are going to be doing so. I've met people who were proud of their ability to drive home drunk.
Banning alcohol would be the solution, but people would be up in arms if their freedom to consume alcoholic beverages was taken away
banning alcohol would be one way of addressing it. but that has been tried and is not effective. Therefore we make it illegal to drink and drive.
Or are you suggesting that pro-vaccers never drink and drive?
I was not attempting to suggest that.
And the level of sweetener required would depend upon the necessities of those that you are trying to sweeten....People will do all sorts of things for a buck if they are desperate.
and this is kind of the point of the topic (I think, it is n8nrgmi's topic). In order to protect society from the virus we need herd immunity. To do that, we need at least (ideally more than) 70% of the population to be immune to the virus. So that is the goal.
There are different ways you can try to achieve it though. You can try to mandate that people must get the virus or be punished by law. This has obvious issues related to freedom and would likely harden attitudes about the vaccine.
You can try to educate people, telling them the benefits of the vaccine and why it is such a good idea they take it. However, alot of people don't trust information from experts, they only trust information from some blog post or facebook page.
You can try more specific ways of encouraging people to get the vaccine. Things like banning kids from attending a public school until they have taken their vaccine, etc. This way people still have the freedom to refuse if they feel strongly, but are encouraged to take it.
n8nrgmi's solution is to use the carrot, not the stick. Reward people for doing the smart thing (with stimulus money) rather than punish them for doing the stupid thing (endangering people's lives by refusing to vaccinate). It seems more likely to have positive results.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So what's wrong with everyone be satisfied with their own personal choice.
that's a bit like saying everyone should get to make the personal choice about whether they drive drunk. It isn't only their life at risk, it is everyone around them. We, as a society, infringe on their right to drink in order to protect public safety.
I understand that mandating vaccines is a tricky subject. But I think stimulus checks being tied to vaccination is an interesting idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
As it turns out, you don't need socialism at all... That is the point this sort of rhetoric is trying to avoid.
how do you figure? without socialism there is no modern world. It was built with socialism. Public schools, public roads, public funded or subsidized healthcare. etc. Without socialism, america as you know it would not exist. It would be some 3rd world shit hole where most people can't read or write.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
One day it may be fashionable to eat your human-looking dog too, but don't count on it.
Yeah, stamping out prejudice and long outdated thinking is hard. Lots of people hide behind religion to avoid really having to think about the world or what they are doing. it is hard to reach people like that. But that doesn't mean we need to bow to them and let them steal people's rights from them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
you seem to be missing my point, pure capitalism would be an unmitigated disaster. If you look at how the poor lived in the 18th and 19th century you can see a taste of that. Poor people usually didn't receive any education. If they got sick or injured they were just written off and on their own. Workplaces were often extremely dangerous because owners didn't want to put safety measures in place, etc.
Similarly, pure socialism also doesn't work. If you take away the rewards you get for doing well, then people are less inclined to work hard to excel. And a centralized economy simply isn't flexible enough to be effective.
To get a good system, you need to blend both. You need capitalism to drive growth and expansion. You need socialism to protect workers and the poor and society as a whole. Without socialism, you get a system where the rich crush the poor under foot in the name of profits, which is the direction the US is currently sinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
200 years ago, the rubes of the past thought the same exact thing about Africans. You have to "draw the line"
of course you do. humans are humans, horses are not. We do have to draw the line somewhere. That hasn't changed.
History has proven that lines are arbitrary
they aren't arbitrary. They are determined by cultural and/or logical reasons. Over times the culture and circumstances change requiring the lines to change.
Religious people have, for centuries, argued that women don't have the same rights as men. They couldn't own property, they couldn't vote, etc. That same culture is still telling women they don't have the right to control their body when someone else's religious "principles" say they shouldn't. That outdated way of thinking needs to die out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's not for you to decide. If cultures wanna anthropomorphize a fetus, they are going to do it. Cultures have anthropomorphized far more ridiculous things.
no, it is for society to decide. and the majority of society supports a woman's right to control her body. There needs to be a limit somewhere, ie aborting the day before birth would be wrong, but it sure as hell isn't the moment of conception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
Public schools are government programs that developed in the United States without need of socialist philosophy. It just happens that they would share a common interest.
It is using public resources to help the poor. That is socialism. That is what the left wants. It is fundamentally no different that what america has done for centuries. They just want to increase the services offered to people. But right wing people act like it is somehow unamerican to do what america has always done, to do things that helped make america great.
Do you think america would be a world power without public schools? no. It would have a population unable to read, let alone innovate. Socialism has been critically important for america's success.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
200 years ago people thought the idea of slave owners being forced to give up control of clumps of African bioform property was ridiculous as well.
true. they saw a fully formed human being and decided it wasn't a human being. People who want to take a woman's right to control her body away from her see a cluster of cells and claim it's a human being. both were wrong for doing that.
Here's hoping in 200 years people won't believe either of these any more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
God is OK with abortion. About 1/3 to 1/2 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant. About 10 to 20% of women who know they are pregnant will miscarry. A miscarriage is most likely to occur within the first 3 months of pregnancy, before 20 weeks' gestation.
yeah, and most "religious" people who use that as a justification to be against abortion claim to do it because they are "pro-life". But many of these same people would fight to the death to prevent paying taxes to actually support unwanted children that are born. And they would fight against any program that is designed to prevent these unwanted pregnancies in the 1st place.
They basically just don't want to allow an abortion, but don't want to do anything to try to prevent it being necessary, or to deal with the consequences if a woman can't get one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Now, we have Spanish on our official documents,
so?
one party has large support for hate speech laws
and one party has large support for hate speech, that would be the much bigger issue.
one party supports strong gun control
I think most people support common sense gun control. There is a difference of opinion of where that line should be, but i think most people can agree that having to pass a training course and a background check is reasonable. But the republican party tries to obstruct any kind of reform at all.
one party’s leaders laud the ruffians in our streets
yeah, the republicans. They love those gun toting "proud boys" who try to attack and kill protesters
a large portion of Democrats aren’t even against “socialism” as opposed to “capitalism” anymore.
America has always had socialism. Public schools, that's socialism. The fact that republicans hate a word they don't even understand is the much bigger issue.
That isn’t to demonize Democrats-even though I’m 100% biased against them- that is to point out that, without the same basic values, you can’t really say that we’re all just the same and can come together for change.
none of these things are differences in basic values. Xenophobia isn't a value. both sides are against (or at least claim to be against, the republicans seem to cheer it on) violence in the streets.
They differ in certain policy goals. How much gun control is the right amount? No one thinks they should be handed out on the street to every person that comes along, virtually no one thinks all guns should be banned. So everyone agrees some amount of gun control is needed, it is just how much that is at question.
the issue is not that there are fundamental differences in basic values, it is that polarizing language is being used by both sides to try to play up this divide. The leadership of both parties want you think that the other side is the "other". They are unreasonable and want to destroy your way of life, etc. That way you have no choice but to support them, even though you likely don't agree with alot of the things that leader wants to do. It is a political tactic, and it is causing huge damage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I suppose, but 200 years ago people would have said it was nonsense to consider an animal with human DNA from Africa to be a person and not property. Times change.
they do. And I have no doubt thinking on this issue will continue to move over time, as it does for all issues. But asking a woman to give up control of her body because she has a cluster of cells that might one day become a person is a bit ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is a point where it is no longer permissible for a woman to claim a fetus as property.
that's fair. At some point between conception and birth a fetus becomes a person. I don't pretend that I know exactly where that line is. but lots of right wing people would say there is no line, at the moment of conception that tiny cluster of cells is a fully realized human being with human rights, which is obvious nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I've said that our expectation should not be that by merely legislating law, we expect that the legislation, alone, solves the problem of people killing other people wth guns.
no one has ever suggested that it would, so why you are making that point I do not know.
Ban guns, we'll use knives. Ban knives, we'll use spoons. Ban spoons, we'll use thumbs.
true. you cannot stop people from wanting to harm other people. but you can prevent them from having access to deadly weaponry. It's alot harder to kill people with a knife than with a gun. Therefore, criminals are unable to get guns, alot less people would die. Gun control is not about stopping all crime, it is about reducing the damage of that crime.
By the way, on that theme of banning anything,
no one is advocating for banning all guns. So that is another strawman argument
What I'm saying is that a better course is to allow abortion in special circumstances, such as a qualified endangerment to the mother, but not on a whim of inconvenience. After all, with 99% cases of pregnancy, the woman willing engaged in sexual congress, and should bear the responsibility of consequence. "I don't want it," doesn't cut it. She wanted the sex, and should be responsible for that choice. Yes. CHOICE.
here we fundamentally disagree. You should not have the right to legislate what she can do with her own body. If she wants an abortion, she should have a right to do so. But the comparison between this issue and guns is extremely tenuous at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I mention it because you totally discount that there is a choice to break the law. IT IS AS A CHOICE. You may discount it as a assholes's choice, but even assholes have choices. Get it? You choose to ignore my argument. Proved my point.
you don't seem to have made a point as far as I can tell. Some people will break the law. That is true of every law that has ever been passed. So what?
Are you arguing that unless we can get 100% compliance that we shouldn't bother with laws? That would mean the end of organized society. If you are just pointing out that some people will break the law, then sure, understood. And they will be fined or go to prison. At which point they will obey gun laws since they can't get a gun in prison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
We are not compelled to obey the law.
that is what laws are for. You are compelled to follow them or you will be punished.
So, any gun law you produce thinking you have just solved a simple problem with control of behavior will not necessarily control human behavior to break the law at all. I have never said anything different than that.
so your entire point is that some assholes wont follow the law? That is true of literally every single law. Why do you feel that pointing that out is at all useful? That goes without saying. It has little to no bearing on this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So we force people to wear the proper safety equipment to save lives.It is still a matter of choice, isn't it? Just as the choice is there to use a weapon properly, or by our own whim. What's the difference? Our choice is the difference.
no, it isn't. We make laws saying you must wear a seatbelt. You must operate a vehicle sober. You must do extensive training to ensure you can use your vehicle properly, etc.
That isn't optional. If you fail to do any of these things you can be fined or arrested. It is not your choice whether you feel like getting a driver's license or not. If you want to drive a car, you will get a license.
Guns should receive similar treatment. If you want to own a gun you should have to pass a background check. You should need to take a training course on how to safely use, store, clean etc, your weapons. To me that is really obvious stuff. If you can't pass a gun safety course, then you shouldn't have a gun.
You should have the freedom to own a gun. But that right is not limitless. You should need to show you are responsible to use and store it safely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, but in the case of gun control via modification of the 2A, your achievement is at the cost of limiting people from exercising their 2A who have no intention of, and will not break the law. The problem with limited freedom is that a few are benefited by the control of fewer still.
ok. but thats a bit like saying that making a law enforcing the wearing of seatbelts is mandatory limits people's freedom by forcing them to drive a specific way. Those people have no intention of getting into a car accident. They may never get into a car accident. But car accidents do happen. So we force people to wear the proper safety equipment to save lives.
Most gun owners never intend to commit a crime with their gun. Some of them will end of up doing so (maybe road rage, maybe they get angry and kill their spouse etc). Some of them will lend their guns or have them stolen and then used to commit a crime. Some of them will have their guns used in accidents that will kill or maim people.
Just like seatbelts, society has the authority to limit people's rights to do certain things to protect lives and society as a whole. That could include banning certain weapons from being owned, requiring a background check so that people with a proclivity for violence can't access firearms, or requiring that every person must complete mandatory safety training courses so that they can prove their are able to safely utilize their firearm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
One statement says, "...legislation cannot limit human behavior. " If it's less than 100% effective in limiting behavior, which the second phrase stipulates regarding the first, then human behavior cannot be 100% controlled, which is the aim of legislation.
No, if legislation is even 1% effective, then you have limited behavior. If it is less than 100% effective, then you have not limited all behavior. It would be nice if legislation could be 100% effective. But humans don't work that way. Virtually no legislation is 100% effective.
However, creation of a penal system says that one branch of the government [the executive, via the justice department] does not believe the legislative branch is totally successful, or it would not have a penal system in place.
everyone understands that legislation is not 100% effective.
But all of this doesn't seem to support an argument. If there is no legislation, then even more people will do the thing you are trying to stop (in this case spreading a deadly disease). So even if you can't achieve 100% success, even if you got 60% success, you could save 10's, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As if churches cannot prepare the same exact precautions?
That depends. All the churches i have been to are designed to pack people close together on pews to pray. So you would have to limit capacity to like 20% in order to socially distance. If churches can show that they will do that and enforce strict mask requirements, then sure.
It is not true that legislation cannot impose behavior? None so blind... they say. The prisons are full of people who are not deterred by the risk of capture, indictment, trial and conviction for criminal behavior. Therefore, legislation is not ever 100% effective in prevention.
ahh, but you've moved the goal posts. your statement was " no legislation can successfully limit human behavior." Now your statement is "legislation is not ever 100% effective in prevention." Those are not the same thing. One means that legislation cannot limit human behavior. The other is that legislation is not 100% effective at limiting human behavior.
No legislation will ever be 100% effective. People are dumb and selfish. They will break the rules if they want to. But we know that if we don't put the rules in place, alot more people will do dumb and selfish things, like packing into a crowded space with no masks, thus spreading a deadly disease.
If people weren't idiots or assholes about thisThank yo making my point
your point was that we need government legislation because otherwise stupid people will spread a disease? That seems to be the opposite of what you were intending, but seems to be the argument you made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I need not ask anyone anything, and I object to your insistence that it is my obligation. I'm merely saying that such decisions are clearly not made on the basis of a scientific principle,
New York is implementing policy to restrict public gatherings to save lives. this is backed up by doctors and science. Nevada has decided that protecting casinos is more important than the people who may die because of it. And if the casinos are able to properly implement safety precautions, such as mandatory masks and social distancing, they may be right that the benefits outweigh the cost.
not to mention that no legislation can successfully limit human behavior.
lol that is just obviously not true. If that were true, then there would be no point in laws because no one would listen to them anyway. You fine sometime a large enough sum of money for not wearing a mask, he will learn to put it on.
as Madison, said, if men we angels, we'd need no government, because we would already have learned that by conduct of correct principles, we can govern ourselves without need of the institution.
this is well said. If people could be trusted to take proper safety precautions like wearing masks and social distancing, then the more restrictive measures wouldn't be needed. If people weren't idiots or assholes about this, we wouldn't need to close most businesses. But unfortunately, alot of people cannot be trusted to act responsibly. So we need government to step in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Less contact means what? no more than 6 in hour private home? but going to any store doesn't apply?
In a store, they are, theoretically, enforcing social distancing and the wearing of masks. In a private home over dinner, odds are no one is doing that.
stop serving alcohol at 5pm but you can buy it at a store?
because if you buy it and bring it to your home, you are drinking it without other people nearby. If you drink it in a bar or restaurant, you are much more likely to be in close proximity to others and spread the virus. Especially since as people drink more, they are less likely to follow the rules.
the hypocrisy imo invalidates and justification they attempt to use, but again I thought we were listening to the scientist? are governors now scientist too?
doing these things have been recommended by scientists and doctors. Whether doctors believe that New York needs to implement those procedures right now, i don't know. But that they are good ideas during a spike in infection, absolutely. There is no question of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Could you provide a source for information about the order?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
But now expectations are so low (again imo) that any success Biden has will be amplified more that it would be otherwise.
In places like MSNBC, they will be singing his praises all day long, I have no doubt. All he has to do is wear a mask in public and not tweet anything mean and they will go on and on about how presidential he is. But, for people like that, they liked how things were going under Obama. They thought it was great. So going back to neo-liberal (economically right wing) policy is perfect for them. Although, to be fair, there isn't much difference between Obama economic policy and trump economic policy.
To me that is the natural/logical progression, gas-hybrid(maybe hydrogen)-electric. Skipping A to C is concerning.
Isn't that a bit like saying "cars are great, but if we don't have a horse tied to it as well as an engine, that is unnatural"? Old technology is meant to be replaced when something better comes along. In this scenario, that old technology is doing significant damage. If we don't get off of it soon, alot of people are going to die and alot more are going to take huge financial damage. This is already happening, but it is going to get much worse. Even a tiny change in climate will have dramatic impacts.
Having lived in a cold climate with feet of snow, I'm not sure how well an all electric vehicle will work out.
I admit i'm not an expert on electric cars. But Canada has lots of electric cars. Presumably, if cars had significant problems in the cold they wouldn't be sold there.
My hope is he doesn't rock the boat too much or bring back the old policies that no one wanted in the first place.
which polices?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
And, to me at least, this is kind of the tragedy of trump. Trump doesn't have the right wing political ideology that has paralyzed the republicans and democrats for years. Both sides are stuck in their own political ideology and dogma. If trump had tried to push a real populist agenda he could have brought real change and helped alot of people.
For example, he said he wanted to replace obamacare with a system that would cover pre-existing conditions. If he had actually pushed for that and made it a priority, he could have helped millions and millions of people. But he, and his team, never gave a single suggestion of what could replace it despite repeatedly promising he would be announcing it soon. He said he wanted to bring jobs back to america. If he had made that a priority he might have been able to do alot of good too. But instead all he accomplished was getting companies to make big announcements which they ultimately didn't deliver on, like foxcon.
But once he got elected, he surrounded himself with the same old republicans establishment types. And so all he did was push standard republican policy with some populist rhetoric. Tax cuts for the rich, threatening iran and north korea, fear mongering about immigrants etc. All without doing anything to actually improve the situations.
The potential was there for trump to do some good just because he wasn't bogged down with right wing ideology. That coupled with his desire to make people love him could have delivered real, tangible benefits for people. But instead he delivered 4 years of mostly cookie cutter republican policy with some fear mongering and populist rhetoric thrown in. I wasn't exactly hopeful when he got elected, but I thought his "outsider" style might actually shake up the establishment and bring some change. But it didn't.
I realize this is not really related to the topic, just my thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
because people like harris would have NOT been the v.p. choice solely based on her record, obviously.
I disagree. She is exactly the kind of person Biden and most of the democratic party establishment would want. they are looking for someone to be the next generation of right wing economic, neo-liberal leader in the democratic party. Kamela is perfect for that. She mouths enough of the platitudes to fool some people into thinking she is progressive, but where it counts, her policy, is no different than what neo-liberals have been pushing for decades with a few tweaks.
They tried hard to sell Kamela in the primary. The news outlets (msnbc, CNN etc) couldn't stop gushing about her and talking her up every chance they got. She is perfect for them. She looks and sounds like change, without bringing significant change. To quote Biden "nothing will fundamentally change"
Created: