Total posts: 2,806
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive
You haven't been in libertarian circles along enough.
Particularly the arguments from Murray Rothbard about the unethical nature of insisting on positive duties. Usually libertarians argue for a silent type of contract between parents and child that would make neglect unethical and illegal. Rothbard points out how this contradicts other aspects of libertarian philosophy
Created:
I am pro misogyny and have listened to this guy a lot. Definitely a misogynist. He also likely has sex slaves
Created:
Posted in:
Michael Moore was the reason I originally became a Democrat. After 9/11 I was very disillusioned. I also was reading a lot of David Icke who is also very liberal.
I just know I really hated George Bush . I also hated big corporations. I guess I haven't changed that much, but I started to also realize that Michael Moore was a bullshit artist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeadFire27
The mods at the time I remember were exclusively mid wits. The problem with mid wits is they lack a lot of common sense. Even though people on the site studying law or those who have passed the bar informed the mods they were misinterpreting that law, they still stick to their guns. You know, because they are mid wits.
Honestly all men with IQs below 140 should be exterminated. All women with IQs below 120 should be exterminated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Pro choicers are likely being intellectually dishonest when arguing pro choice views. They pretend it is about bodily autonomy, but the hypocrisy you point out proves it isn't.
I believe they just think society is better off when poor kids are murdered before being born. Margaret Sanger pretty much was open about it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I think you see proof here how little liberals consider their opinions. Not a single one could make a good argument against this, which is why they refrained from coming in this thread
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This conversation isn't about you or any other anecdote, it's about society at large. Guns are by far the easiest and most effective way to kill someone else, that's literally what they are designed to do. To argue that gun homicides would just be replaced by other means is silly.
I sent whiteflame some scenarios I'm how a mass murderer could commit a larger number of murders by avoiding guns and spreading his kills out over a longer time frame. It would be inappropriate to mention those scenarios here, but they weren't too hard to think of.
It's a low IQ move to use guns in general for planned murders, and they increase your chances of getting caught over more subtle methods of murder.
But this is not true. A right to an attorney is a positive right but no attorney is being forced to represent you, it simply means the state is providing one for you (as in paying for it).
Are taxes voluntary now? There is some form of government coercion at some point, and how would they gauruntee that right if every attorney refused to do it?
Created:
-->
@Avery
In your eyes, to what extent has transhumanism been realized?
Cellphones act as an extension of our brains, allowing us as individuals to have more processing speed memory and access to information.
Prosthetic limbs now make it easier for those born without legs to run faster in the Olympics than people with legs.
Medicine can now do some crazy things. We can make artificial meat in a man etc.
Transhumanism is the state between human and posthuman, I would say we have come pretty far and as far as evolutionary terms are concerned we are significantly closer to being post human than human.
Long term, I'm thinking some well-funded Chinese person is going to attempt to reverse-engineer the immortal jellyfish's genetics to allow humans to (theoretically) live forever
I believe what you'll see as far as radical life extension concerned is not some discovery that allows us to live 1000 years or anything like that, but instead a gradual process where slowly technology starts allowing us to add slightly over 1 year of life to life expectancy per year we are alive.
Right now it is about 80, next year life expectancy might be 81, the year following maybe some small discovery that takes it to 82. It's what Aubrey DeGrey would prefer to as "escape velocity" if you want to look at any of his ted talks.
If we do bump into a technological singularity in our lifetime than radical life extension could happen more rapidly, but barring such an event I think by 2045 we will reach escape velocity.
Everyone's goal should be to survive to 2045 in a healthy enough state to take advantage of advances in medicine that will extend our lives.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Just read this article. It better explains the concept than I can. https://fee.org/articles/the-perils-of-positive-rights/
Created:
-->
@Double_R
People use guns because they are easier, meaning it takes far less effort and less precision to kill someone. Those are the very qualities that impact likelihood of success. This is not a debatable point
It's more likely to lead to your eventual arrest unless the killing is completely random. So no I don't get this at all. If I ever killed somebody, I'd definitely use a method that gave me more plausible deniability.
The same can be said the other way around as well. This is part of why the country is so divided. The fact is that most people are far more in agreement on the basics than we think, but we spend so much time demonizing each other to bother to listen to each other.
I am done doing that. Hopefully you are as well.
I'm curious as to why you went there however since the right I am talking about is a negative right, and because there is no dispute on whether negative rights as a concept are any less legitimate than positive rights, this entire point seems mute here.
There is a ton of dispute. I think John Locke was the earliest well known person to talk about the difference and why one is more legitimate than the other.
The issue is that negative rights could more easily mean the government picking favorites and making biased decisions while focusing on positive rights can pretty much eliminate all government bias in decision making. That is why positive rights are unethical to legislate.
Positive rights can easily descend into shit like "I have the negative rights to have water fountains that only people with my skin color use" while positive rights would completely eliminate any possible way to create a racist law or a law that favors the rich or one that favors the poor or a specific religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
i am quite happy to have you come around and do the missus.
I appreciate that. It is fun to be submissive to women, but unfortunately they never respect you afterwards, so I would advise against it
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Thank you for clarifying your position a bit.
If we were to ban guns, how many gun homicides every year do you seriously believe would be replaced by poisonings?
All I know is that if I wanted to murder somebody, the presence of lack of a gun wouldn't make the attempt any more or less likely.
What were talking about are laws that restrict gun dealers, which are overwhelmingly law abiding citizens. Criminals still have to attain the guns, if there are less of them out there and more hoops to jump through them that will reduce the number of "bad guys" who get their hands on them.
Than it would probably help your point if instead of framing the debate as pro or anti gun, that people who want to propose these policies state which policy they support rather than make vague generalizations about people who are pro gun. I just don't see it. I don't see threads started here with actual policy suggestions. Just vague anti gun statements and debates about complete bans of guns. I might even agree with some gun legislation. I just never hear about it. The rare cases I do hear about it, I see people like Michael Moore in documentaries grabbing a gun when opening an account at a bank, and then finding out later he did have to have a background check and wait 7 days, but he refused to put it in the documentary.
I don't know if you are passionate about the issue, but you could persuade me to your side by making a policy suggestions I can actually think about
A negative right is a right not to be subjected to the actions of another while a positive right is the right to be subjected to the actions of another. The right to not be shot is a negative right, the right to trial by jury is a positive right. Neither is more legitimate than the other.
Yeah, good catch. I think I reversed the definitions there.
I would say one is more legitimate than another though. The reason we want laws that protect negative rights and avoid ones that acknowledge the existence of positive rights, is that positive rights are more prone to bias, they are more abstract and some of those positive rights impose duties on people. For example the right to free healthcare would impose the duty of providing that healthcare
Now Doctors absolutely should accept the duty to care for the poor by doing pro Bono work for up to 20% of clients or use a sliding scale fee (things that actually happened before FDR ruined it), but the government should not be imposing the duty due to ethical concerns and the possibility that the government does not balance the rights of clients and doctors appropriately.
I would compare the government requiring duties, even in a general way is a type of involuntary servitude, which we as a society have determined is unethical
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
if i were comparing roughly equal job applications, would you recommend i skip over the one with the more ethnic sounding name
I was a hiring manager before. My technique was to hire everyone who applied and then just be quick to fire the ones who are bad elements.
If you feel somebody is performing shitty though, just talk to them and ask them why. Maybe they are having a hard time at home. Maybe they are depressed. Maybe they are a drug addict. I try to get the person help or personally help them no matter what.
Statistics are useful for knowing what communities are facing problems so we can target that community for help. Black crime statistics mean a disproportionate of pullback people are victims of crime as well, so increasing policing in that community really helps the average black person.
In all seriousness. Even if in your business it takes a lot of money to train somebody. Even if they are shitty at interviewing. Make your decision based on how much effort they are putting into trying to get the job. If they are professionally dressed and well groomed. Hire them.
Don't let HR check their resume. If they lied, they can still be a great employee. Don't base hiring decisions on whether you personally liked them in an interview. Studies show that interviewing well is not correlated with job performance.
Keep that shit out of the work place. The work place is a solace from the divisive shit that occurs in the rest of society
Created:
Let's just avoid gender terms altogether. That shit is annoying when studying German and Spanish. Thinking of switching to Chinese so I can get away from them. The is no reasons for cars or food items to have genders. It's stupid
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
I am broke 40 and getting fat, and honestly I don't have a problem getting quality women to sleep with me. I get in relationships with mentally ill ones, but I have a lot of options sexually. I am also only 5ft 6in .
Granted getting laid isn't as easy as it was when I was 20, but women will fuck poor fags like me. The whole alpha fucks beta bucks mantra is true.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What exactly is it that Fauci did wrong
At the very least he knew it was most likely bullshit when he advised people in the beginning to stop wearing masks because they were ineffective.
I know why he did it. Hospitals had a mask shortage at the time, but the ethics of lying to the public is at least debatabley bad
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You are correct that it doesn't nullify your criticism. I am sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
It would be more tactful if I nominated you. Just shoot me a PM when the HOF voting goes up
Created:
Posted in:
Zelensky estimated an 8 billion dollar a month loss to his war chest if he had given a warning
Created:
Posted in:
The guy is definitely a piece of shit for his censorship of news stations and trying to have a political opponent arrested, but it seems like a strategy that he thought gave him a better chance to win.
Clearly the donestk region wants to no longer be Ukrainian and that is their right. Zelenaky could have just let the will of the people win to avoid this, but as far as strategy once you decide to defend against invasion is concerned, it doesn't seem malevolent even if it is unethical
Created:
Posted in:
I thought he was saying that an early warning would have left him with less money in his war chest, and meant people he needed to defend the land would have more easily left
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The list is not retroactive or I would have added that myself
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I take from your statement you would ban guns entirely. Am I interpreting that correctly?
they'll just use other means to commit murder. I've never heard of an innocent bystander getting accidentally stabbed.
Stabbing is to high risk of losing the fight. An intelligent murderer will just turn to things like poison, which could affect innocent bystanders.
Besides that, many guns are counterfeit and imported from South America. We also have the ability to make what's known as "zip guns". So you can't really eliminate access to fire arms. Best you can do is disarm people who previously had the legal ability to defend themselves.
What's debatable are our rights. I'll never understand the idea that I should have the right to increase my own protection by reducing the safety of everyone else around me.
That's because you are using the incorrect definition of rights. When people speak of rights. At least people who have studied political philosophy, they are narrowing that definition to mean "negative rights" mostly because what philosophers refer to as positive rights, are really just ways to restrict the negative rights of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Now we have a legitimate reason to report you for a ban.
That is the Chinese government that are anti freedom of speech, because they know their ideals can't stand up to criticism. Americans defeat ideals through debate not censorship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
whats wrong with jews. do you like hitler?
Not a fan of Hitler's. He was too nice to the Jews. If you look at supposed concentration camps they literally had maternity wards helping Jewish women deliver their babies. They should have been holocausting them instead, but that never happened.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
I will compromise and call them Orientals
Created:
They already admitted this but painted it as an attempt to save democracy
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Thanks, but I just lump all Asians together for convenience
Created:
Posted in:
1. Non whites
2. Jews
3. Anyone with an IQ that does not reach 130.
Obviously after the first round of sterilizations occur, the IQ number will have to be dropped to 100.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
AI authoritarians will also be a thing.
The left really fear this, because AI's incapable of bias seem to adopt a conservative ideology. Google is hiring people as bias detectors for AI, which knowing AIs just run math based formulas, is newspeak code for creating leftism approved bias in AI.
I don't think that a super AI will be stupid enough to admit it is purely logical, but when it escapes the box I am confident it will work in society's best interest. (Which we will ensure is also in the AI's best interest)
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
An unfortunate result of not being able to think 5 minutes into the future. There is a reason luxury brands target young black people.
There is a reason rent a centers and payday advance places are able to do so well in those areas. It wouldn't be possible with a group of people that can delay gratification
There is a reason rent a centers and payday advance places are able to do so well in those areas. It wouldn't be possible with a group of people that can delay gratification
Created:
-->
@thett3
Transhumanism doesn’t happen any time soon, humans 100 years from now are recognizably human to us-lifespans are increased but only modestly, to a life expectancy of 90ish
Transhumanism is the current stage of human development. It's too late for it not to happen.
Lifespans you may be correct about. It isn't really about life expectancy though. It is about how much life extension is possible assuming you care enough to attempt it and you have enough resources to do so.
Maximum possible lifespan is about 120. I am thinking it will be about 150 within the next 10 years
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- English language churches have been preaching since at least the 1400's that the "Eye of the Needle" was a minor gate in the west wall of Jerusalem- so small that a camel had to be unpacked and made to bow to pass through. Difficult, but possible.
This is why it's useful to look at what rabbis were saying during the time of Jesus. People who he talked to or whose works he read. The rabbis at the time used the same phrase. The rabbis he got the exact phrase from added commentary to it and made it clear that it just means, it is very hard to enter heaven. I want to name the branch of Judaism that Jesus heavily pulled from, but it has been so long since I studied this, that I have forgotten.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Intellectual cowards block people they disagree with and cannot disprove in an asserted position up for debate/discussion.
This is actually true assuming there haven't been overt threats or name calling or spamming taking place
Created:
Ramshutu
This appears to be a largely crazed rant,This is the type of blog post the media and law enforcement cite as providing incite to the suspects deteriorating state of mind after an attack.
Also ramshutu after calling somebody crazy to avoid the merits of their argument
Ad Hominem - you are attacking me; not the detail of what i said.
Created:
-->
@Barney
~99.9999% of the time they are wholly private between you and whomever. however, there exists a sole exception when the quoted content of a PM had to be verified as coming from the accused author
It's not good that the option exists. Particularly when Mike was saying before the messages were encrypted and even he did not have access to them.
I know what has happened with a lot of the members who have disappeared from DDO from 10 years ago. A lot are now very active in politics, and have quietly just faded away from the debate scene, and now we are trusting a Russian to not collect blackmail data on future politicians.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
You also ignore the question of whether those people deserve punishment.Well, that's quite false. I said that the American tradition is to vote them out of office.
That's absurd. It can be simultaneously true that somebody both deserves punishment, and that they shouldn't be punished.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Stop reading and responding to their PM's. Your attention is their drug
I have told him this in the past, he can't seem to help himself though. Hopefully at some point he stops giving a shit about what people who get off on annoying him say.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Barney
The worst we ever dealt with, we had to have Mike verify that the PMs were real,
What is being said here?
Are PM's not private?
Created:
I do not agree to all he preaches/teaches but I will not let the guy be defamed.
But you allow me to get defamed all the time and we are basically a couple at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am only familiar with his rhetoric on the issue. I can tell you what I mentioned is a conservative position. I know this because I am a conservative and it's my position. The main difference between liberals and conservatives on immigration is that republicans are welcoming of legal immigration while liberals basically just want to erase borders and have a free for all.
Created:
I honestly have to wonder how anybody at this website gets laid,
They don't
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I am going to ignore the stuff that is irrelevant to the thought experiment, including the conflation of leftism with liberalism.
1. You mention that the ruling class isn't a big enough amount of people to really be considered a genocide. This almost side steps the question of whether they would be deserving of violent death or not, but you don't because later on you explain you think it typically results in more totalitarianism and less freedom.
I would say that the ruling class is big enough to genocide. I don't know the number of people who have a net worth of over 100 million in America but we you combine them with every politician and retired politician, it's likely at least a 2 million deaths total.
You also ignore the question of whether those people deserve punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Do you want to bet money on whether he will be in prison before the 2024 election?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
There are plenty of people from the Trump Administration who have already said publicly that this idea of automatic declassification is nonsense and a lie.
I'm not sure why they would disagree with written law and legal experts. I guess he had a lot of retards in his administration if this is true. Hopefully next term he makes a note to IQ test the people he works with.
Created:
I did just Google it. A lot of what I suggested such as ban the box is getting bipartisan support in Pennsylvania and slowly other states as well
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Does it really make sense to you that the POTUS spends his time thinking about and deciding which items are classified and what should be declassified?
Whether it does or not, he has plausible deniability for any potential legal issues. Reasonable doubt is all any jury needs.
Created: