Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In a civil debate - you don’t repeatedly ignore the opposing argument, and when someone points out you are engaging in an outrageous straw man by taking the things he’s saying so far out of its obvious context that it beggars belief - you don’t simply ignore that argument and restate the same straw man.
I mean, the more I think about your argument the worse it gets; in a conversation that deals exclusively with mothers killing children, where all of the arguments are exclusively about mothers killing children, where you have repeatedly suggested and said mothers killing children is not murder - on what planet do you have to be on to think that “killing children is not murder” is not referring to mothers killing children?
If you want a “civil debate” then at the very least you should consider being open to engaging in debate - if you providing arguments, but ignoring the majority of what the other side is saying - that isn’t a debate.
If you don’t wish to be called out for intellectual dishonesty - don’t be intellectually dishonest.
Created:
-->
@Avery
I've got no idea why anyone would choose to upvote this. It doesn't come close to addressing the OP's fact and argument.This is tone-policing designed to distract from the argument.
Actually, take a look at the linked blog post. It comprises many, many individuals claims, it’s unclear as to what the central thesis that he wants to discuss really is, what is the central underlying argument.
It’s impossible to debate with a rant that touches upon multiple topics and makes multiple points, which is what the blog post was; so it’s important to understand out of the mess of claims, accusations and links - what is the actual thing he wants to discuss?
Look at it: how does one actually respond to that mess?
What it’s doing, effectively, is a form of Gish Gallop. Throw as many things as you possibly can as quickly as can, and be implicitly overwhelming.
That covers what I meant in the first part.
I can mostly disentangle two broad themes of contention in the blog post - firstly that the facts are ignored by liberals - and that people raising the issues are branded racist.
Both of these he’s covered in a covered post, which deteriorated into him calling everyone names: and refusing to respond to the arguments. The general crux of the counter argument was:
a.) The left doesn’t really ignore the data in the way he implied.
b.) Accusations of racism against people raising the concerns is often attributable to the ways it brought up.
For example: if you ask a specific question about a piece of data - that’s probably not going to raise any questions.
If one launches into a campaign of multiple blog posts, angry screeds, multiple threads and posts that universally and angrily fixate solely and excessively on negative aspects of Black America - it is not unreasonable to attribute that level of fixation to racism.
So in this respect - I’m not really policing tone ; I’m not making any suggestions or demands about how he should or shouldn’t present his case ; I’m really answering the question explicitly stated elsewhere, and implied throughout his blog: “why is it people keep calling me racist for this?”
The answer to that question, is specifically rooted in his tone and behaviour.
Created:
Posted in:
Influencing an appointed Judge of the court on case rulings destroys the very foundations of law. How would you like it if your life was on the line in a court case and a mob protested outside the Judge's home in order to have you executed despite the legal arguments of your case?
But it’s not a court case with a regular person on trial for a capital crime.
It’s the Supreme Court, comprised of justices appointed for politicial reasons, with a selection and appointment process that is highly politicized; ruling on highly politicized issues of personal rights.
If you don’t believe this ruling is political in nature, then I have some very special and very magic beans you may be interested in buying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Trump is well known for being the internet’s biggest bully, a childish man who spent half his time in office tweeting insults at everyone he didn’t like from politicians to world leaders to celebrities. But you have a problem with Joe Biden being insulting.
Of course he doesn’t. I suspect he doesn’t really care about any of the faux outrage that he peddles. At this stage I don’t think it’s valid to reply as if he does - or anyone who makes these sort of posts on Twitter, 4chan, etc.
For some on the right, the issue is one of doublethink. That they do care about insults, crimes, ethics, etc, but compartmentalize and don’t let those two arguments meet. They’re the ones that get angry and shouty when you point it out.
There are many right wing individuals, however, on Twitter, parler, etc: many in the conservative media - and GP - that don’t.
In these cases, the guiding principle doesn’t appear to be any form of ethical standard, or reasoned ideology - the guiding principle is simply the unifying primacy of attacking a political opponent. What is true or false is not relevant, what is right or wrong - is not relevant, debate is not relevant, contradiction is not relevant. All that is relevant is whether a collection of statements or facts can be arranged in such a way that can attack the opponent - no matter how valid, contradictory, hypocritical that attack ends up being.
“This is not about persuasion: This is about disorientation”
In many respects - the whole point of this, is to prevent rational discussion by trying using incendiary nonsense to goad people into spending maximum effort engaging - but putting no effort in, and not engaging himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
“never said, "that killing a child is not murder"
You’ve already made this claim.
I responded above explaining why this is false in all possible interpretations.
At this point, I think it’s clear that you’re argument is the disingenuous, obtuse and wholly unreasonable straw-man I was talking about in the post above that you completely ignored:
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that despite this entire thread being in the context about mothers, all my replies are about mothers, and everything I’ve said is about mothers - and at no point, at any point, has anything I have said here at all, comes close to implying or suggesting I am talking about people other than the mother when talking about child killing… that somehow, maybe, you’ve decided that when I am stating things such as “child killing is not murder” - that I suddenly now mean all child killing?This would, of course, be such a colossal, obscene strawman of my point - given that it clearly takes all those statements completely out of any reasonable context in which it is possible to take them - and requires an interpretation of what I said that is so deliberately obtuse, pettily semantic, and clearly ignorant of my actual argument that I am hesitant to suggest it as it strongly implies either stupidity, or dishonesty.If this is the point you’re making: then I accept your concession on this point - and refer you back to all my original points - as this is clearly a massive straw man of my point, deliberately obtuse and completely unreasonable.
Conversations are two way: I acknowledge and argue against what you say, normally people have the basic common courtesy and respect to do the same. You don’t have to respond to every line - but at least have a response to the broad argument I’m making.
Your post here - is intellectually dishonest.
You made this claim, I explained why it was wrong - you completely ignore my reply, and restate the claim. It’s not possible to have an intellectual discussion with someone who repeatedly ignores half the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I just completed a search of this entire thread, starting on page one and ending on page sevenspecifically for the quote "killing a child is not murder"
perhaps look harder:
i said that if the mother of a child kills her own childwithin the first 12 month of it being bornis NOT murderand furthermore, they rarely get any serious jail time (at least in canada)
You also suggest it here
Me: Deciding to murder a child, is not (A) - it’s (B)You: this statement is demonstrably false, based specifically on the legal definition of infanticide which includes "intentional killing"
And here:
Me: Sometimes it’s murder - sometimes it’s infanticide.You: “In Canada, a mother can kill her baby with the mens rea (a legal term for guilty mind) required for murder and escape conviction for murder….and look,i'm just as shocked and outraged as you (apparently) are about this
Your argument is scizophrenic.
When you have repeatedly argued, as shown, that killing a child is not murder - it’s infanticide? Did you mean infanticide is sometimes murder? In which case - I accept your concession (see iv) above
When you have repeatedly argued, as shown, that killing a child is not murder - it’s infanticide? Did you mean infanticide is sometimes murder? In which case - I accept your concession (see iv) above
If you’re arguing killing a child is never murder - then I accept your concession, as the above set of arguments - which you mainly ignore - shows this is not true.
You are flitting between the two based upon what you're replying too
Now, I include this not to insult your intelligence, but for completeness:
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that despite this entire thread being in the context about mothers, all my replies are about mothers, and everything I’ve said is about mothers - and at no point, at any point, has anything I have said here at all, comes close to implying or suggesting I am talking about people other than the mother when talking about child killing… that somehow, maybe, you’ve decided that when I am stating things such as “child killing is not murder” - that I suddenly now mean all child killing?
This would, of course, be such a colossal, obscene strawman of my point - given that it clearly takes all those statements completely out of any reasonable context in which it is possible to take them - and requires an interpretation of what I said that is so deliberately obtuse, pettily semantic, and clearly ignorant of my actual argument that I am hesitant to suggest it as it strongly implies either stupidity, or dishonesty.
If this is the point you’re making: then I accept your concession on this point - and refer you back to all my original points - as this is clearly a massive straw man of my point, deliberately obtuse and completely unreasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Me:it omits the key error in your argument. The two key errors as I keep pointing out, is one of classification: that all purchases are A whereas some are actually B;You: nope, not ALL
Not all!
if you bother to examine the legal definition of infanticide you will see that it includes "intentional killing"
Yes all!
me: Deciding to murder a child, is not (A) - it’s (B)You: this statement is demonstrably false, based specifically on the legal definition of infanticide which includes "intentional killing"
Yes all!
that's actually the very definition of infanticide
Yes all!
Your argument is schizophrenic.
Recall: you said a woman can decide to kill a child within the first twelve months; That killing a child within the first twelve months isn’t murder and that infanticide typically has a low penalty.
We have two types of killings - various transient acts of mentally unstable mothers that should be treated more leniently (Crime A) - and deliberately callous murders that should be punished harshly (Crime B)
(i) If by “a mother can decide to kill her child” you really meant “if a mother under major mental stress or instability from child birth snaps, and kills her child” IE: there is some impunity for Crime A, but not necessarily for Crime B - then I am happy to accept your concession - as the original statement implies Crime B - not Crime A; as in no way shape or form can Crime A be described as “deciding to kill your child”.
(ii) If on the other hand - you meant “a mother can decide to kill her child” without qualification and are implying impunity for Crime B - then I am happy to accept your concession - as there are many examples of murder charges and harsh punishments; contradicting this statement.
(iii) If by “a mother can decide to kill her child” you mean without qualification and without any implied impunity - “I can decide to kill a stranger (though I will be charged and prosecuted for it)” -- then I am happy to accept your concession - as this statement makes utterly no sense in terms of anything you said before and since,l.
(iv) If by “killing a child is not murder” you meant “killing a child can sometimes be murder” - then I am happy to accept your concession - as the original statement is absurd.
(v) If you actually meant “killing a child is not murder”, and that “all child murders are infanticide” - then I am happy to accept your concession - as there are clear examples of that not being true - thus the statement is false.
Which one of (i - v) you seem to argue at any given time appears to depend on what argument you are replying to.
Your only counter arguments seem to be variations of:
“it is rather difficult for me to imagine any murderer is "of sound mind”
IE: Infanticide requires mental instability. Killing your child is evidence of such instability. Therefore crime B is crime A.
If this is the case - I am happy to accept your concession - as examples demonstrate cases where Crime B is not treated as Crime A - demonstrating the your standard isn’t being applied.
You also use variants along the lines of:
YOU ARE AGREEING WITH ME THAT TYPICALLY WHEN A MOTHER KILLS THEIR OWN CHILD WITHIN THE FIRST 12 MONTHS, THEY ARE NOT CONVICTED OF MURDER
Again - you’re using this to imply impunity.
(vi) If you mean this impunity for Crime A, but not really for Crime B - then I am happy accept your concession (see i above)
(vii) If you are suggesting impunity for Crime
B - then I am happy to accept your concession (see ii above). You argument is citing the combined outcomes for all of Crime A, and some of Crime B; and using this to imply outcomes for crime B - which is a text-book fallacy of composition.
And this is exactly how my analogies are set up:
You have a crime superset (buying weapons, killing husband) that comprises two individual sub types Crime A and a much worse Crime B (nuclear weapons,firearms; murder, battered wife). It illustrates why attempting to show some form of impunity for Crime B, based on the treatment of Crime A is fallacious.
Now: your objections to the analogy, are equally ridiculous:
purchasing a nuclear weapon is nearly impossible are you suggesting that infanticide is nearly impossible ? or are you suggesting that the difference between infanticide and infant murder or manslaughter is equivalent to the difference between a nuclear weapon and a common pistol
Crime B is different and worse to Crime A - but part of a superset of crime. Difficulty, or magnitude of the difference isn’t being compared anywhere, nor used to draw any conclusions - so are irrelevant.
are you suggesting that the battered woman example is somehow an atrociously and utterly false statement ? it seems pretty fair to me perhaps somewhat unnuanced, but not exactly atrocious
Yes - the suggestion of impunity in the analogy requires the Fallacy of composition (see ii and vii above). And suggesting there is some broad impunity when no real impunity exists or should exist - makes it atrocious.
the difference here is QUANTIFIABLE and …. "the state of mind of the mother" … is QUALITATIVE
That is certainly a difference, but one that is irrelevant: the important aspect in both instances is that you are arguing that Crime A is the same as Crime B based on your personal interpretation - not how the law is specifically worded or applied.
i'm sure in many cases it could be, however, historically, juries have been much less sympathetic to women killing their husbands than to women who kill their own children before they are 12 months old
And? That battered wives were historically treated more harshly than mothers is irrelevant to the analogy as I’m not equating the punishment.
to be clear, these are YOUR projections (strawmen) of what you THINK "my argument" is
He asserts without explanation.
nope, the definition of "fire arm" does NOT include "nuclear weapons"
Likewise - the definition of infanticide does not in itself include simply deciding to murder your children; nor is the law applied that way.
You ALSO completely ignore ….
He childishly parrots without example
i prefer to ignore your ad hominem attacks
Pointing out that you keep claiming I did things but you refuse to say where - is challenging your claims - not an ad hominem.
it's kinda weird how you try to place the burden of proof on me to refute your "refutation" when your "refutation" itself is obviously inapplicable
He asserts without argument
You spend two posts haggling over whether my point contradicted you, or refuted you - and 0 posts dealing with the point I made.
well, it certainly seems like you are basing your argument on the difference between ALWAYS and MOSTLY
He asserts without argument. None of my argument depends on punishment being mostly vs always less than a year.
calling me "purposefully dishonest" is the same as calling me a liar (which speaks to motive) and technically an ad hominem attack
Lying is dishonesty - but dishonesty is not always lying. Also: It would be an ad hominem if I was calling you dishonest in place of attacking your point - I am not.
what is ridiculous is your failure to acknowledge your entire objection hinges on the word "decide"
He asserts without argument
if you feel like you have failed to communicate your point of view, it's always a good idea to demonize your audience
I am not attacking you for not understanding - I’m attacking you for repeatedly skipping over my arguments, pretending they didn’t exist - and then repeating points they addressed. Something you don’t appear to contest.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
He’s been caught dead to rights. If he wasn’t the former president, he’d be indicted right now. But out of all the illegal things he’s done - this is not the worse, I’d rather see him Imprisoned for his attempt to undermine the peaceful transition of power.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
If this were Bush, or any other president - yeah. He should absolutely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for committing actual crimes worse than those he himself demand that his previous political opponent be locked up for.
Unfortunately, this is trump - arguably the most corrupt, criminal president in history - including Nixon. He should probably be put away for the worst of what he did.
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry, I just felt the need to point out the the study itself ironically censored the real reason for misinformation by omitting the obvious rise of censorship in the last decade.
Exhibit A - the person posting continuous, nonstop disingenuous misinformation; pretends their posting of continuous, nonstop disingenuous misinformation is not the problem - it’s really the people they target with their nonstop disingenuous misinformation!
Please post more unverified, random YouTube videos without further!
Created:
-->
@Conservallectual
Secular humanism is a contradiction. Here's why(note: I am neither an atheist or a humanist) :
Humanism: puts humans at a prime moral/social/philosophical importance.
Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.
Here's the problem: In an atheist worldview, why do humans have to be more important than animals? Why aren't monkeys or rats of prime moral importance? Why of all the animals supposedly generated by blind natural processes do humans have to be of any major moral importance? After all, in atheistic worldview, a very good person who does good things like donating to charities, saving people, being kind to others, has the same fate as an evil man who kills everyone he doesn't like, steals whatever he wants, and has lots of hatred - when they both die, they completely disappear. This is the problem with every atheistic world view that claims to have a strong moral code - like communism.
There’s a lot to unpack. Let’s start off with morality.
Regardless of whether there is or is not an afterlife, morality exists. We make moral decisions and do our best to construct and explain moral frameworks. We are all driven - to a greater or lesser extent by concepts of good and bad, moral and immoral.
Whether or not our actions truly matter on a universal scale; or to some external diety - does not change the fact that it still matters to us.
In the framework of atheism, the stars don’t give a sh*t if the earth winks out tomorrow. If races are wiped out, if we all suffer and die, or if transgender girls are able to use the wrong bathroom. But we ourselves still remain moral creatures and it matters to us.
In this respect - the lack of an afterlife doesn’t mean that morality “doesn’t matter”, it simply constrains who it matters to, to humans.
Contrast this to a typical afterlife. If someone is looking forward to some infinitely positive reward in heaven - does their suffering in this world really matter that much?
If our life is a mere blip - a nothing : just a test as a prelude to a real reward - does our doing anything beyond the minimum necessary to secure paradise actually matter? Obviously not.
Likewise, we are here for a few short Years - 100 tops. This is the only life we get. It is our only chance. I every one of our decisions at every point matters as a result.
At its most basic level - in a world without god, where thus earth is not just the preliminary test for a world that matters, what we do is all we have, our choices are the most important we will ever make.
Whether or not our actions truly matter on a universal scale; or to some external diety - does not change the fact that it still matters to us.
In the framework of atheism, the stars don’t give a sh*t if the earth winks out tomorrow. If races are wiped out, if we all suffer and die, or if transgender girls are able to use the wrong bathroom. But we ourselves still remain moral creatures and it matters to us.
In this respect - the lack of an afterlife doesn’t mean that morality “doesn’t matter”, it simply constrains who it matters to, to humans.
Contrast this to a typical afterlife. If someone is looking forward to some infinitely positive reward in heaven - does their suffering in this world really matter that much?
If our life is a mere blip - a nothing : just a test as a prelude to a real reward - does our doing anything beyond the minimum necessary to secure paradise actually matter? Obviously not.
Likewise, we are here for a few short Years - 100 tops. This is the only life we get. It is our only chance. I every one of our decisions at every point matters as a result.
At its most basic level - in a world without god, where thus earth is not just the preliminary test for a world that matters, what we do is all we have, our choices are the most important we will ever make.
Created:
Posted in:
Not one mention of censorship? What a juvenile study.
Exhibit A
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this is a purely voluntary interactionclearly we disagree about the key points of this conversationpart of the function of a conversationis to negotiate (instead of simply declaring) the key points
Part of the function of a conversation, is not to ignore the entirety of another persons conversation multiple times.
By all means, in my previous long post - I have explained my primary argument - by all means - argue with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this appears to be the core contention
I’ve made multiple posts now; where I have specifically summarized my point, my contention, explained how it applies to what you said, and why it undermines the nature of what you were implying.
Each time - you have completely ignored that argument.
You’ve ignored broad swathes of my posts, childishly parroted paragraphs back at me; made multiple claims I’ve asked you to justify (I am still waiting on all of them)
I’ve provided a comprehensive outline of my argument. You can either argue against it - or not.
I’m not going to spend any more time reiterating my point, when you seem bent on being as intellectually lazy as you can possibly be by boiling down a complex argument to a thin summary; especially when you are likely to completely ignore whatever I provide anyway.
Please refer back to my previous post - my entire argument is very well documented and clearly spelled out there - you may argue against it if you wish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, so your entire contention is with the word "decide" ?
My contention is described and explained in detail in the posts you keep ignoring. I’m pretty explicit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You completely ignore the critical issue in your post - to fixate on some random minutae that has no bearing and continually and repeatedly ignore the arguments in the post when they’re made.
In what way? Where? What did I miss? Can you cite examples?
When you’ve cited that: can you go back and cite:
- where I called you a liar.
- where I selectively quoted you and missed a key point.
This is just petulance.
ok, so your entire contention is with the word "decide" ?
My entire contention is listed in detail in the post you just completely ignored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill itwhich i'm going to compare to the following,apparently, at least in america, a person can purchase a weapon any time they wish
This is a terrible analogy; it omits anthe key error in your argument. The two key errors as I keep pointing out, is one of classification: that all purchases are A, whereas some are actually B; and that you are using the results of one category of crime as a basis to assume that another category of crime would be treated similarly.
Fixing your analogy:
“Anyone can decide to buy a nuclear weapon - because the punishment for illegally purchasing a fire arm is normally less than a year.”
Or let’s try another:
“Any wife can decide to murder their husband - because the punishment for battered wive defences is normally less than a year in prison.”
That’s the issue with your argument:
The issue I keep pointing out, and you keep purposefully stripping out of your responses and ignoring is:
- Buying a nuclear weapon would not be categorized as illegally purchasing a firearm.
- Murdering your husband for arbitrary reasons would not be categorized as a battered wife defences.
- Deciding to kill your baby - would not be categorized as infanticide.
And:
- The penalty for illegally purchasing a weapon being is less than a year - doesn’t mean atypical or different offences are also treated leniently
- The penalty for a battered wife being less than a year - doesn’t mean atypical murders or different offences are treated leniently
- The penalty for infanticide being less than a year doesn’t mean atypical murders or different offences are treated leniently.
Your responses are akin to:
- But nuclear weapons are technically fire arms, as they are weapons, that law would apply.
- A wife would never kill their husband unless she could argue he was harmful to her in some way.
- But I didn’t say it was ALWAYS less than a year! You’re making stuff up, I never said that!!!
You completely ignore the critical issue in your post - to fixate on some random minutae that has no bearing and continually and repeatedly ignore the arguments in the post when they’re made.
YOU CLARIFIED YOUR STATEMENT BASED ON MY OBJECTIONS THEREFORE YOU ARE A LIAR
By all means cite the post where I called you a liar. You can add it to the citation of where you feel I am selectively quoting you, or where I have failed to respond to one of your key arguments… I’m still waiting on those:
and sure, SOME women may be convicted of murder instead of infanticide for killing their own children within the first 12 months
Bingo. Nailed it. Let’s try and get you over the edge. Pay attention. Let me walk you through the issue and problem in your argument, yet again. Hopefully, you will not strip out and ignore this critical point this time - as you have continued to do throughout. Here we go:
There are very rare, heartbreaking instances of women after childbirth, not thinking straight for a variety of reasons - through forms of inaction or momentary breaks - kill their children (Crime A). The law recognizes that this type of scenario is not the same as cold blooded killing of a stranger, so has a special law to cover it (Law A) - when Law A is applied to crime A, typically the courts are lenient and aware limited jail time (Punishment A)- if any; and that’s not unreasonable. A day old baby screaming for a entire days on end, a mother in pain at her wits end, snaps for just a split second and shakes her baby - that’s not cold blooded murder and shouldn’t be treated that way.
There are also - even rarer - pretty horrifying murders of children, callous abuse, or bordering on psychopathic decisions where a mother kills a child. (Crime B). The law recognizes this scenario is as murder, and typically ends up with the mother charged for Murder (Law B); being convicted and going to prison for multiple years (punishment B). There is perhaps one or or two case where the woman commits such a murder and is charged with infanticide, and faces larger jail time than in Punishment A (Punishment B) - perhaps there is some mitigation, but is generally punished by Murder with lots of jail time. Perhaps not all, not all cold blooded murders yield the same result after all - but generally so.
Deciding to murder a child, is not (A) - it’s (B)
Your argument, is that because women who commit Crime A, and are prosecuted under law A are typically given Punishment A - that a women can decide to commit crime B, and largely expect to be prosecuted under law A, and receive punishment A, rather than be prosecuted and punished for Crime B under per Law B.
No. That’s stupid. As I have been saying throughout.
What you’re doing here - is really just a semantic objection to something I said.
How? Why? Because you say so?
I explained why this argument was semantic - in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored
in most cases it's actually true.
Not at all; and I described exactly why in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored
Punishment for Crime A is meaningless as an indicator of the punishment for Crime B
contradicting is not the same as "refuting"
But in your case - you explicitly state that killing your child is not murder - that Crime B is treated as Crime A. Showing that people committing Crime B are charged with Crime B, not Crime A both contradicts- and refutes the claim. This was covered in the part of my post you stripped out and ignored.
And this is really your issue: rather than explain why what I said didn’t refute your claim; you’re just objecting to my characterization of what some data does, on a technicality.
to be perfectly clear, there is an extremely significant difference between ALWAYS and MOSTLY
And if I was basing any of my argument on this difference, your complaint would be relevant - but it’s not.
but seriously, just make "your point" clearly … what the hell is your "central point" anyway ?
This is getting to the point you’re being purposefully dishonest.
Literally the 5 paragraphs above the portion you quoted spell out the details of what my objection is. Why are you chopping out all the paragraphs where I clearly spell out my point - and then demand I clearly spell out my point.
This is ridiculous.
This post was a reiteration of post 131: where I detail what you’ve said, what my objection to it is, and why: you completely ignored the detail of that entire post too - fixating on a minor semantic issue - childish parroting, and assertion:
This post was a summary of post 81 - which you almost entirely ignored, and also post 90 - when I specifically repeated this same argument - and upon which you largely ignored in order to focus on simply reiterating the claims being contested that a.) “But a nuclear weapon is a type of firearm”, b.) “Firearms offences normally carry a lower sentence”, and c.) nuh-uh.
At this stage you seen comprehensively unwilling to even acknowledge - leave alone respond to what I’m actually saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you injecting the invisible word "always" and imagining "all mothers" into my statements is the very definition of a strawman
Not really; in my last post I tacked together the three primary posts that I’ve been using to draw my characterization of your argument - exactly - specifically. I characterized your argument exactly from your words and made the same exact points Ive made all along.
My characterization of your argument has been completely accurate throughout - I have been attacking that characterization.
What you’re doing here - is really just a semantic objection to something I said. That I used the wrong word - even though that word made no material difference in the argument I was making.
You’ve characterized the law as being able to decide to murder your kids, that murdering your kids isn’t classified as murder, and that the punishment is mostly trivial. None of those things are true. And I’ve been attacking that throughout.
Pretending that I mischaracterized you: when I’ve been taking what you said, and the points you’ve been making throughout - is rather disingenuous.
no, no it is not
Yes It is - I explained exactly how and why above - I can summarizes the posts and links in which I have.
you are also "selectively quoting me" and "failing to respond to key arguments" and, holy crap, basically just making up things that i never said.
Where exactly?
Please cite the specific post you feel I have not responded to a key argument, or have selectively quoted you.
My issue is that I’m attacking what you’ve been saying, your characterization of the law.
You have mischaracterized the law by saying you can decide to murder your child - implying that you won’t be prosecuted for murder. That’s false
You have mischaracterized the law by saying women who murder their children is not murder. That’s also false: women are charged and convicted both of murder and infanticide. I mean that’s what you said - and you’ve been ignoring this critical distinction for like 15 posts now - despite it completely refuting one of your central points.
You have characterized the punishment for murdering your child as minimal - which it almost always isn’t for the type of cases equivalent to “deciding to kill” your kids.
You’re not defending any of that nonsense; you keep sliding over and ignoring this part of my argument - the critical part.
Instead you appear to fixate on cases where I am characterizing your argument pretty accurately but used the word “always” instead of “mostly”.
This is just a semantic non argument - because you are unable to address my central point.
By all means - refer to my last post, take my characterization of your posts - and tell my which part am I misrepresenting and why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It can be right next to the section for calling people ****ing s***** a***ing f***** ****heads nonstop
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That doesn't really fit the bill. People of course are going to have disparate reactions to disparate cases. We're talking about reversing full generalizations.
You were talking about generalizations that various parts of the Justice system are targeting a political group. I think only one side is really doing that - for sure democrats have complained about specific cases, and specific examples of actions - but the only generalization I can recall is about local law enforcement, and not about a political group, but heavy handed treatment of a given racial group: a generalization that is not necessarily unreasonable.
For instance BLM didn't see the Floyd video (where he wasn't murdered), and go "this specific cop is a problem" they went "ACAB", systemic problem; abolish the whole thing.
Some - for sure. Many, if we’re being honest, believe that problem is not that most cops aren’t good but there there more bad cops than there should be, and the police organizations and the set up of the police produce, support and encourage those bad cops, as well as setting up a confrontational style that leads to even good cops producing bad outcomes.
The point I’m making, is that I’m not sure whether, as you seem to imply, that those people are also now saying that the FBI are fine, don’t need to be broken up, and that they’re upstanding, and should be trust.
Or - as I alluded to - the people who are currently saying the FBI are largely okay today - are not the people who were chanting to defund the police.
That got a giggle out of me. Hope it was intentional, so you say that people in one tribe mistakenly assume the opposing tribe is monolithic.... because you assume they're monolithic... and then you used "heterogeneous" when you clearly meant "homogeneous"
Lol yeah! I missed that, I looked at it and checked it too. Yeah - I meant homogeneous.
I don’t think republicans are monolithic - but they are far more homogenous than the democrats. With Maga republicans even more so. On the maga side, in most cases that grouping is typically in pretty keen lockstep in a way democrats could only dream of. There is an complete multi-way bun fight if you suggest what Colour tie to wear between progressives, centrists, and activists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You’ve gone from saying this:
apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it
Which is blatantly untrue.
To this:
i said that if the mother of a child kills her own childwithin the first 12 month of it being bornis NOT murder
Which is also false. Woman are charged and convicted of murder in some cases, and infanticide in others.
To this:
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
Which at best talks only about infanticide, and doesn’t cover the women charged and convicted of murder.
Given that you’re kinda jumping around, we’ve now got to the point you seem to acknowledge that woman are convicted of actual murder, and generally get jail time - but less than for someone killing a stranger: which we both know is what I meant.
So let’s qualify all this ridiculous nonsense, full circle:
The idea that you can decide to kill your child before twelve months is utter bullsh*t. Invented from whole clothe.
You confuse the existence of an infanticide statute - which exists to recognize that there are tragic examples of manslaughter and murders of children down to post partum mental illness that should not be treated as murder - with that statute applying to all cases of women killing their children. This is again - bullsh*t.
You assert that because you feel a woman killing a child qualifies as mentally unstable - and thus the law applies - and thus you’re not likely to get a stuff penalty; even those this is not what the law says, and this is not how the law appears to apply: this interpretation, again, bullsh*t.
Finally, let’s return to the claim.
In your hypothetical scenario: you feel that if a woman “decides” to kill their child, it would be treated as infanticide as you could argue they are mentally unstable, and would be unlikely to receive significant jail time.
The reality, is that the crown could and probably would (given examples), prosecute them for first degree murder, and they would receive a pretty stiff sentence as a result; because it’s unlikely mental instability due to child birth could be established.
Given this, your original statement and must off the guff since is all bullsh*t.
You appear to be continually selectively quoting me, failing to respond to key arguments, ignoring specific and targeted attacks on your argument for whatever reason; but that’s the whole point, laid out.
If you’re going to continually refuse to respond to the specific reasons the things you’re saying are wrong; it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I’m not quite sure what the specific argument is.
The first seem to be “intelligent processes exist.” I’ve seen more of than these than I would care to list; but they all boil down to describing something with ambiguous or subjective language, and then making an argument from incredulity saying that it can’t be random.
To make an argument for intelligence in this wayyou have to first come up with a reasonable criteria of what an “intelligent” process is, and what the properties of it are that preclude such a process occurring in nature and why.
For an intelligent object - like a house, that’s relatively easy; but for processes and other stuff - it’s near impossible.
This argument tends to fall apart when you try, because either a.) you chose your terms so loosely that you are unable to explain why such a process couldn’t happen naturally, or b.) you chose your terms so strictly that all natural processes responsible for life can be deemed as unintelligent: there’s not really any middle ground.
The second problem, is not actually a real problem, but an issue of slippery theists:
There are many arguments against God, the problem of evil, the a metaphysical issue of a disembodied will seeming to make no sense, to the logical contradictions of various religions, when religions or the religious create specific assign specific properties of “God”, that god typically ends up being logically incoherent. Generally speaking, atheism has a good handle on logically refuting all specific Gods, and has a pretty decent explanation of why gods were invented in the first place, and why were even having this conversation. Realizing that the jig is up, theists typically respond by watering down their claims about what God is to the point where it can’t rationally be defined as God; but then use that generic definition to magic their God into existence - see Kalam.
The first seem to be “intelligent processes exist.” I’ve seen more of than these than I would care to list; but they all boil down to describing something with ambiguous or subjective language, and then making an argument from incredulity saying that it can’t be random.
To make an argument for intelligence in this wayyou have to first come up with a reasonable criteria of what an “intelligent” process is, and what the properties of it are that preclude such a process occurring in nature and why.
For an intelligent object - like a house, that’s relatively easy; but for processes and other stuff - it’s near impossible.
This argument tends to fall apart when you try, because either a.) you chose your terms so loosely that you are unable to explain why such a process couldn’t happen naturally, or b.) you chose your terms so strictly that all natural processes responsible for life can be deemed as unintelligent: there’s not really any middle ground.
The second problem, is not actually a real problem, but an issue of slippery theists:
There are many arguments against God, the problem of evil, the a metaphysical issue of a disembodied will seeming to make no sense, to the logical contradictions of various religions, when religions or the religious create specific assign specific properties of “God”, that god typically ends up being logically incoherent. Generally speaking, atheism has a good handle on logically refuting all specific Gods, and has a pretty decent explanation of why gods were invented in the first place, and why were even having this conversation. Realizing that the jig is up, theists typically respond by watering down their claims about what God is to the point where it can’t rationally be defined as God; but then use that generic definition to magic their God into existence - see Kalam.
Created:
Posted in:
significantly less than murdering a stranger in MOST CASES
We’ve gone from you saying it’s not treated as murder, and gets no prison time (which is false) - to murder, and prison time - but less than murdering a stranger. That’s progress.
the legal standard is "mentally unstable"which seems to very obviously apply to any case where a mother intentionally kills their own child in the first 12 months
Is this the really the legal standard; or is this just you reading the law, interpreting it in a particular way, and then running with it? Because that can’t really be classified as “a legal standard”.
Given that a.) individuals are still prosecuted for and convicted of murdering children and b.) most of the ones I’ve seen get prison time even for the lesser charge; it would still seem to contradict those original claims.
citation please
I cited the original law previously, and cited the names of women who have been sent to prison both for murdering their babies, and for infanticide - indicating my key point - that murder and infanticide apply to different crimes in different ways.
Specifically, and you should read the law, the requirement is not that a woman is simply mentally unstable - but that instability is directly related to the consequences of the birth or lack of recovery from it. Being a psychopath and murdering your kids because “you decide” you don’t want them would not qualify under this
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
so, are you trying to say that you think that a perfectly sane and mentally stable mother can intentionally kill her ownchild within the first 12 months ?
If you re-read my posts, my argument is clear:
- There is a clear legal distinction between murder, manslaughter and infanticide - contrary to your assertions otherwise
- Prosecutions and jail time for women, in Canada for murdering their babies, and substantial jail time for infanticide back this up - contrary to your assertions otherwise.
- that the application of the law would treat someone who simply decides to kill their child on a whim as murder - not infanticide, because it doesn’t meet the criteria laid out. Contrary to assertions otherwise
I’m taking specific issue with your specious characterization of a law based on bizarre hypothetical scenarios upon which you apply wild hyperbolae: that are at clear odds both with what the law actually says, and actual instances of how the law is actually applied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What you said was:
i said that if the mother of a child kills her own childwithin the first 12 month of it being bornis NOT murder
This is false.
Canadian mothers who have killed their newborns have been and are prosecuted and convicted for murder. And sent to prison.
Other Canadian mothers who have killed their newborns have been prosecuted for infanticide have been sent to prison.
Other Canadian mothers have been prosecuted and not sent to prison
Your characterization of Canadian law - that a parent killing a child is not murder - is flat out false - refuted by both the law and the facts.
You’re argument now appears to be that you agree with the province arguing for clarification of the law - that the lack of a formal standard makes it easier to acquit women of murder. That’s a completely different argument.
I won’t necessarily disagree that the law could use clarification: but that doesn’t make any of your characterization of the application of the law valid - because it clearly isn’t.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It’s kind hard to specify individuals that have responded to something that hasn’t happened yet.
However, I can for example, point to Trump specifically reaction to two individual Michael’s. Sussman, and Flynn.
Sussman - who apparently lied to the FBI and was acquitted definitely did it, and wasn’t entrapped, and the acquittal was a travesty. Flynn - who lied to the FBI, plead guilty, was a politicial hit job.
I recall various individuals here echoing similar points - including GP, but it’s a bit tricky to search prior comments for specific quotes x
Is that satisfactory?
On the other hand - you have a handful of pretty extreme - all cops are bad in everything they do - on the far left, I don’t know who they are. I haven’t heard their specific commentary on the FBI.
You have a bunch of people who want local police systems defunded; but who mostly acknowledge that not everything the police do is invariably bad. I haven’t heard their thoughts on the FBI either; perhaps they think the FBI did the right thing in this case - but also need to be defunded - I don’t know, I haven’t heard.
Then you have a bunch of people in the middle, who were never for defunding the police, who I have heard many comments about the FBI - that they have issues but aren’t hugely biased either way, and mostly do their job. But that’s not too hypocritical.
Theres a propensity on the right - given the vast diversity of general beliefs of the left - to Hoover up everything everyone says on the left, and attribute it to some centralized collective policy consciousness. It’s often not the case, and is mostly projection as the broad voice you hear on the right tends to be more heterogenous than the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i never made this claimi said that if the mother of a child kills her own childwithin the first 12 month of it being bornis NOT murderand furthermore, they rarely get any serious jail time (at least in canada)
You keep saying it, but that’s not true.
Sometimes it’s murder - sometimes it’s infanticide. It depends on the specific circumstances. Which is the point I’m making - and you don’t appear to grasp.
Mothers can be, and are charged and convicted of murdering their new borns in Canada and serve jail time (see teenie Rosie steer, Georgina Anne Lowe, Sarah Leung - all charged with murder, all got hefty prison sentences). Other mothers - who can be shown to satisfy specific criteria - are charged with and convicted of infanticide - and also go to prison for it (see Shannon Dawn Rayner for an example), many are charged, convicted but don’t go to prison for it.
When you say
Is not murder
This is absolutely and categorically false. the reality is:
Is not, in every case, murder
There is a huge world of difference. Which you don’t appear to appreciate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't think atheists have faith in anything. The only reason their beliefs are illegitimate need to be degraded is because it comes out of bigotry not a single atheist I've ever met has any respect for a single theist.
Please provide a quotation of a case where I have disrespected you.
Perhaps, and I’m just spitballing here - that your perception of atheists being disrespectful is partly down to your go-to responses being gems such as:
You guys are pieces of crapgo take a s*** on the toilet, wipe your ass and flush cuz that's all the more it's worth to me.Another liar who wants some kind of door that they can go through to insult theists and not get called out for itbecause you're a lying piece of s***because you're all goddamn liars and try to look better than these because you think you're superior to them. Fuck that.You really are the biggest idiot that post on this site.
In this respect, again spitballing, perhaps the disrespect you experience from atheists isn’t because you’re a theist, but because you’re a bit of a Berkeley Hunt.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Which specific “all cops are bastards” people have you seen that also proclaimed “poor capitol police”?
For that matter, can you name or cite any individual that that’s said the FBI is super trustworthy that has now gone back to demanding that the police be abolished?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Another liar who wants some kind of door that they can go through to insult theists and not get called out for it. Own your s***
Stop projecting.
You keep portraying Atheism as a belief - in a theistic sense of the word - which is untrue, and an untruth you know untrue - a lie.
Portraying Atheism as a “belief” in something the way you do; is absolutely for the purposes of wanting a door to insult atheists - to claim they also have faith; and thus degrade their claims
You are being called out about it, and don’t like it.
I am sorry that you don’t like the fact that we lump agnostics who do not believe into atheists. I am sorry you are unable to process the fact that I do not have a belief in God, and I have come to conclusions about the existence of gods based on evidence, I am sorry you appear unable to process the difference between faith, and being convinced of something based on its evidence. And I am sorry that you don’t appear to have any better or more credible complaint that atheists have defined atheism wrong.
These are all your problems, not ours. Stop projecting your faults on to us, take your own advice and own your sh*t.
Created:
the FBI are so toast this November.
MAGA crazies: The FBI are Biden’s Gestapo, they need to be defunded, it’s politically corrupt and can’t be trusted. How dare they prosecute criminals that I like.
*Hunter Biden is indicted*
MAGA crazies: EvErYbOdY ChAnGe PlAcEs!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it's not "nonsense"it's factand, clearly, any woman who would intentionally murder (or infanticide) their own infanthas some sort of "mental disorder"
Pretending murdering a child is always murder - is false. Mothers can, do and have gone to prison for murdering their babies in circumstances that fall outside that covered by infanticide.
The continued nonsense, falsehood and at this point, bordering on pathologically so: is the seeming belief that all child murders legally qualify as infanticide.
They don’t. Stop pretending they do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Please don't sit here and try to pretend that atheists don't do certain things because you want to see more superior and thought and action than theists. Atheists believe no gods exist. They do not at any point try to compare one god to another, all gods are in one single category, all gods are false. They do not believe any gods exist and to say otherwise is a falsehood on your part and a lie and an attempt to manipulate the conversation. This is why you get topics like atheist or cowards and atheists or hypocrites because you're all goddamn liars and try to look better than these because you think you're superior to them. Fuck that.
To qualify as an atheists - you must not believe in God. Anyone who doesn’t believe in God is an atheist.
If you believe that no Gods exists - you are also an atheist. But one does not have to believe no Gods exist in order to be an Atheist.
Why this is important, is not anything related to what anyone actually believes, or any motivations about it; it’s because the definitions and they're implications are used by thesists as some weird, nonsensical gotcha to make themselves feel more comfortable about being confronted with opposing views:
That one can paint atheism as a religion if you can use the word “believe” together with some positive claim atheists make. A
That somehow, theists feel able to dismiss the credibility of atheist arguments because they too also have faith - that atheists are just as bad, with some weird tu-quouqe.
So let’s actually spell out the specifics here, to avoid any and all possible equivocation:
People who do not believe in God, but are open to the possibility that a God exists, and don’t make claims either way: are agnostic atheists.
People who believe in God, but are open to the possibility that God doesn’t exists and doesn’t make claims either way; are agnostic thesists.
There are gnostic Atheists; atheists that do not believe, but also make claims about God.
There are Gnostic Atheists that are convinced, through evidence and logic, that God or Gods do not exists. I am one of them; but being part of this group is not a requirement to call yourself an atheist.
That belief is not absolutely, and is qualified based on rational levels of uncertainty.
There are, I am sure, gnostic atheists who profess an unqualified rejection of God, and believe, with certainty that God does not exist. I am not one of them, and I have yet to meet one.
The problem with people who haggle about the definition of Atheism, is that they invariably mean the second of those two gnostic atheist definitions. And they do so often for reasons of that perjorative equivocation I mentioned.
I have yet to meet any Atheist that “believes” God doesn’t exist any more than I have met someone who “believes” the sun will rise tomorrow.
I have met lots who, through evidence, logic and observation rule it out beyond reasonable doubt - but that’s neither a belief, nor absolute, nor a prerequisite for the atheist label.
Now, if you want to clarify the specifics of your wording; and you want to claim that to be an Atheist, one has to have broadly concluded through evidence and reason beyond a reasonable doubt that supernatural Gods are unlikely to exist; but do not hold this conclusion with a conviction beyond that suggested by the evidence - I don’t think that’s the right definition, but at least it accurately identifies the Gnostic subset of Atheists correctly: and I would have less of a deal with it.
If you want to suggest Atheists “beleive” anything or not about God, that’s where you start getting pushback.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Repeating the same nonsense does not make it any more correct.
If you kill your baby, that’s murder.
If you kill your baby, but have grounds for diminished reaponsibility if the birth and resulting health implications impacted your decision making - that’s infanticide.
Mothers go to prison for one, but not the other.
Deciding to kill your baby, would be murder, would be punished as murder, convicted as murder - and you would go to prison. It does not and would not qualify as infanticide legally.
You keep repeatedly conflating murder with infanticide, and portray the lack of jail time for infanticide as if it implies a lack of jail time for murder.
That’s not the case.
I don’t quite understand why you’re still failing to grasp that there is a difference between murder of a child and infanticide, and are continuing to pretend as if they’re the same thing - they’re not, nor ever will be: so please stop pretending that they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I disagree. There will soon be a philosophical revolution in many years to come. Things will become a whole lot more certain one day, its certainly possible if we can tweak kants categories of mind to be analytic a posteriori, then we wouldn't have to rely on logical fallacies to justify our perception of "reality".
Firstly - Again - it’s not dependent on any logical fallacy, that’s not correct (see my posts above)
Secondly - again - no one is attempting to justify their perception of reality - it’s simply all we have to do anything. This is a straw man.
Secondly - again - no one is attempting to justify their perception of reality - it’s simply all we have to do anything. This is a straw man.
I would agree ramshutu, i don't think we can currently be certain of anything beyond ones own existence. This will one day change.
I doubt it. Because we can never be certain whether our perceptions are valid - and any way or validating them uses those perceptions. All we have is a some basis upon which to conclude things - the truth of that basis will never be known absolutely.
The issue you keep tripping up on, again and again, as I have pointed out, is that certainty doesn’t matter. The lack of absolute certainty or truth has no impact on what we view or the knowledge we have. We have never had nor probably ever will have absolute certain truth on anything, and yet here we are.
All we have to assess anything is our senses. That’s it. That’s all we have. It’s that or nothing. And it seems from those senses we have a shared sense of reality that obeys a specific set of rules.
That’s the only observation we make, and have ever made. In the absence of any other observation telling us otherwise - it is literally the only conclusion we have that has any basis of any kind.
You keep pretending as if this conclusion is somehow asserting the observations as truth: absolutely not. No. Definitely no.
You are a person, I can interact with you, I interact with people, they obey given physical and biological rules.
These are the only ways I have to make any determinations about what you are. You could very well be a figment of my imagination - but I have no basis and no observation upon which to draw that conclusion - so why draw that conclusion?
That’s the distinction here; I strongly suspect you’re projecting your need for truth, and your supposition that absolute truth is somehow important, or can be known - onto me; don’t paint us with your assumptions.
The bottom line here; and to paraphrase your whole argument:
The sun is a big ball of gas, we revolve around it, and that means tomorrow, the sun will rise.
That’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from the information we have. We have no information upon which to conclude any differently. It may not actually be true, the sun may not actually exist - but there is no basis on which to draw that conclusion.
That’s the distinction you fail to understand here. Saying that the sun exists may not be true - but is the only statement we can make that has grounding in anything. Any other statement we made, has no grounding in anything.
Your thread here is effectively trying to argue that if you can’t prove for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, then it’s hypocritical for someone to call the claim the sun will not rise tomorrow stupid.
No.
That argument conflates truth with basis. There is basis to conclude that the sun will rise, and no basis to conclude it won’t. There is basis to conclude the universe is what we observe - and no basis upon which to conclude it doesn’t.
What the actual truth is, does not matter - as it what the ultimate truth ends up actually being - will never be knowable.
The issue you keep tripping up on, again and again, as I have pointed out, is that certainty doesn’t matter. The lack of absolute certainty or truth has no impact on what we view or the knowledge we have. We have never had nor probably ever will have absolute certain truth on anything, and yet here we are.
All we have to assess anything is our senses. That’s it. That’s all we have. It’s that or nothing. And it seems from those senses we have a shared sense of reality that obeys a specific set of rules.
That’s the only observation we make, and have ever made. In the absence of any other observation telling us otherwise - it is literally the only conclusion we have that has any basis of any kind.
You keep pretending as if this conclusion is somehow asserting the observations as truth: absolutely not. No. Definitely no.
You are a person, I can interact with you, I interact with people, they obey given physical and biological rules.
These are the only ways I have to make any determinations about what you are. You could very well be a figment of my imagination - but I have no basis and no observation upon which to draw that conclusion - so why draw that conclusion?
That’s the distinction here; I strongly suspect you’re projecting your need for truth, and your supposition that absolute truth is somehow important, or can be known - onto me; don’t paint us with your assumptions.
The bottom line here; and to paraphrase your whole argument:
The sun is a big ball of gas, we revolve around it, and that means tomorrow, the sun will rise.
That’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from the information we have. We have no information upon which to conclude any differently. It may not actually be true, the sun may not actually exist - but there is no basis on which to draw that conclusion.
That’s the distinction you fail to understand here. Saying that the sun exists may not be true - but is the only statement we can make that has grounding in anything. Any other statement we made, has no grounding in anything.
Your thread here is effectively trying to argue that if you can’t prove for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, then it’s hypocritical for someone to call the claim the sun will not rise tomorrow stupid.
No.
That argument conflates truth with basis. There is basis to conclude that the sun will rise, and no basis to conclude it won’t. There is basis to conclude the universe is what we observe - and no basis upon which to conclude it doesn’t.
What the actual truth is, does not matter - as it what the ultimate truth ends up actually being - will never be knowable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it
Infanticide is a crime that requires diminished responsibility. It is a specific crime that recognizes the major mental health impacts of childbirth can have. The scenarios in which it applies are very specific - very limited - and so not apply in every case of a mother killing a child.
Implying that one can simply decide to kill a baby up to twelve months, is absolutely flagrantly untrue false, and frankly obscene. Mothers are still prosecuted for murder, one cannot simply decide to kill your child - that would also be murder - and are prosecuted - and sent to prison for - murder.
You should understand the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
if u think evolution is real, you really think we came from an ameba and that we are related to bananas. if you ask any farmer, they will tell you that all their animals have only ever brought forth after their kind just as how god had said in the bible. is there ever a case wher ea dog gave birht to a cat? NO!!!!!!! a dog ONLY EVER GIVES BIRTH TO A DOG.as to why. we are taught this propaganda, well it's just a liberal ploy.also can any one of you evolution religous pastors tell me - do you think a dog can give birth to a non dog ?
It’s not possible for a dog to give birth to a non dog.
However if you understood, how evolution works, you’d understand that this is not actually a problem - as evolution doesn’t require and never has required one kind of animal to give berth to an animal that that isn’t the same kind of animal.
Eukaryotes will always produce eukaryotes. Bilaterals will always produce bilateral. Deutorostomes produce deutorostomes, Chordates produce chordates. Craniates produce craniates. Rhipidistia Produce Rhipidistia. Tetrapods produce tetrapods, mammals produce mammals. Primates produce primates. Apes produce apes and humans produce humans.
So at no point has evolution requires an animal to be born that isn’t the same - that would be stupid.
What evolution does do - and you wouldn’t hear this from Kent Hovind as he is a professional charlatan - is allow the small changes between insicisuao generations to accumulate over successive generations, so that an animals great, great, great, great, great….x 100.. grandparents could be classified as a different species than that grandparent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
You can interact with them but you cant prove they're actually experimentally conscious in the same manner you are. On top of that i cant imagine you can prove other people to be more than figments of your imagination. Think of Descartes's evil demon. Even if it is a symmetry breaker of sorts, if they turn out to simply be figments of imagination and simply agreeing with you evil demon style, how can you then appeal the shared perception and agreement as valid truth belief? it still seems like you rely on the ad populum fallacy for faith in the belief of many things.
I am not. No one is. No one ever has.
I am saying that our apparent shared perception of and common agreement we have about reality is the only tool we actually have to tell anything.
Saying that our common reality is presented as some absolutely truth is a straw man.
As I said - it’s a shared assumption - if you’re calling into question that our reality exists then it’s not possible to make any claims about anything - God included.
If our shared reality exists in some way, then our observations are valid, and God can be thought of as invalid. If our shared reality doesn’t exist - then everything is invalid - including God.
We don't necessarily have to take perception away, i simply want to know how we can trust our perception, which senses can be trusted and which ones cannot, when and where?
It’s not about trust. It’s not that we assume ultimate truth in anything - it’s that our senses are all we have; and our broadly shared, common consistent observation of reality, is the only sense we have of it.
If our collective perceptions of our reality are false - in some way, then that precludes has making any claims about anything - including God - as we don’t have anything else.
True! but what constitutes reality and what constitutes imagination or evil demon spells?
The framing of your questions presume the answer is knowable. If there is no actual way to tell between imagination, and evil demon spells, or people - then the truth is unknowable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it
What the actual f**k?
No:
Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)“233 A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I would agree, its necessary to have faith in things.
As I said - it doesn’t need faith. I explained why.
I just don't see much of a clear symmetry breaker between a belief in other people existing and God except through direct sensory perception, which in itself isn't provable to be reliable.
The symmetry breaker is that you observe and can interact with people. Their existence is not in question - only the nature of what they are, whether they are real or NPCs in a simulation or something else.
God on the other hand cannot be observed and you cannot interact with him. That’s a clear cut symmetry.
Secondly - the only mechanism we have of telling anything - is our perception - we have nothing else. So yeah - If you take away the only mechanism we have of telling anything at all we can’t tell anything at all.
This is, however, a bit of a reducteo ad absurdeum.
I opened up this forum as a critique of atheists who think the idea of god is ridiculous to show they're hypocrites. Its such a shame that all of science and metaphysics gets broken down to an ad populum fallacy. A logical fallacy is your greatest proof to believe things and not others.
If you think our position is an ad-populum fallacy - you don’t understand the position.
The science and metaphysics all breaks down to the single assumption “that reality exists” - that’s it, that’s all that is assumed.
That’s a common assumption for everyone, and anyone making any truth claim about anything.
I mean after all - If our senses and our reality and observations aren’t valid and reality doesn’t exist as we understand it - then this would make the concept of God equally unsupported too.
Your argument here throws your baby out with the bathwater. God largely fails either way you fall on the assumption that reality exists
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?
In what way, exactly, does the payment of child support - or not - impose explicit restrictions on a man’s body?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I'm unsure if you know if you're necessarily seeing the same thing. How do you know other people are even self conscious to begin with? You may be able to collectively agree on seeing the same thing, but as you said that doesn't make it anymore real.
If there is no way anyone can possibly tell - why does it even matter?
What is “true” doesn’t matter at all if it’s not possible to tell what is true.
The only real basis we have of talking about things is through relationships in what we observe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
To be sure of naturalism, physicalism, materialism, etc, you must first assume your senses to a pretty high degree to be correct.
This isn’t really true.
So let’s start of with basic senses - I can figure out whether we are all seeing the same thing by asking people, take vision or sense tests against a control to determine whether we are all seeing the same thing.
We can make observation of things that can be corroborated as consistent. We can conceive devices that we can assure as accurate through a variety of means by comparing it to other things.
That’s what we can do: now we don’t have to assume their results or what they observe is “correct” merely “all that we can make statements about”
The sun could be a fat guy called Gerald - and we are simply all observing this in a collective delusion; but until we have an observation of Gerald - we will never be able to know whether that’s true or false.
That’s really the crux of empiricism - it’s not claiming things we observe are true; but that only thing we can observe can be known.
Yet there's really not a very philosophical reason to believe this outside of pragmatism.
There actually is.
You have an apple on your desk.
I say that the Apple is an Apple. You say the Apple is actually God.
Let’s say God himself revealed that he is the Apple in some dream or revelation.
How can we tell who is right and wrong?
The only means we have of ever telling, is by observation.
Saying that it’s an apple is at best a statement that the apple is an apple by all means we have available by which to tell.
Saying that it’s God, however, cannot be corroborated at all.
The philosophical reason to use observations as opposed to anything else - is that it’s the only real means we have to validate any statement that someone make.
If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity?
There’s a difference here between dismissing God as unproven, and as a logical absurdity. I think both are true. Most claims about Gods do not make logical sense upon examination, but are unrelated to the way we measure.
For the case that God is unproven or can’t be measured; the important point is that whatever our reality is, or isn’t: to us it appears to obeys common agrees rules; based upon the only means we have to check.
Nothing maybe real in the sense we think it is; but in the context that we observe it, there is no plausible observation attributable to God; and until there is, we should treat the claim of God the same way as the claim of Gerald.
It appears to me almost everything in this world (currently) requires some element of faith, this element of reality is exemplified by the problem of induction. Prove me wrong.
Faith is not actually required for any of it; because no one is really dishonest or misrepresenting the truth of the premise.
I am not saying that Gerald definitely does not exist, and the sun and our reality is exactly as we observe it. That would require faith, as we can’t tell for certain.
When everything is measured in degrees of confidence - not true and false, faith is no longer required.
The fundamental issue here you may need to let go of, is the concept of truth. There is nothing we can know absolutely.
Created:
"It's facism, the Gestapo exists, but it's necessary"-Sam Harrishutu.
If you’re going to completely lie about everything someone says - it’s probably best not to do so when what they’ve said is right there.
The sheer ridiculousness of the claim that the FBI is being misused here, is beyond cretinous.
No one actually believes it - not even you.
So by all means - keep talking to yourself in this thread pretending that this ridiculous lie is not a ridiculous lie.
Created:
Ramshutu having his "Sam Harris" moment.
Nah, Biden clearly isn’t doing any of those things; nor even close to any of those things.
You know it, I know it; but you’re lying and implying he does to spin your own tires.
People like you, and the people you listen to are merely saying that he does - because your entire political voice is governed by being angry at something, and if there’s nothing to actually be angry about - it must be invented. Like you’re doing here.
I’m really just pointing out that you, together with a large portion of Trumps base, seem to have no actual issue with fascism, using the police as the tool of oppression, using the tools of the state to oppress political opponents, limit free elections, and to the widespread dissemination of misinformation, lies in order to maintain conformance; and engaging in your own beer hall Putsch and support of stochastic Terrorism.
I mean it’s pretty obvious, given that Trump initially ran on using the government to arrest, prosecute and imprison a personal political opponent - that you don’t really give a flying fuck about the ethics of it.
Like so much of right wing propoganda and misinformation - it’s just an attempt to lie loud enough and hard enough to make people on the left think it’s true; because generally speaking, we do actually care.
Created:
We can clearly tell Biden is not acting like Hitler in the basis that GP, and a significant proportion of the Trump supporting base have not started supporting him.
37% of democrats apparently don’t understand what the Gestapo was - and the 76% of republicans are annoyed not because they have any ideological opposition to the existence of the gestapo, but that they are not in control of it.
37% of democrats apparently don’t understand what the Gestapo was - and the 76% of republicans are annoyed not because they have any ideological opposition to the existence of the gestapo, but that they are not in control of it.
Created:
Nothing you wrote explained why we do not feel it especially if we are hurtling around the Sun and through outer space inside of a moving Milky Way that itself is hurtling.So why doesn't a tiny fish next to a blue whale get tugged into its gravitational field? Why does a mosquito next to a skyscraper or mountain not either?
This is easy - have you ever been in a lift/elevator in a big building? You accelerate - move at a speed - then decelerate. You cannot feel the speed you are traveling at, only the change in speed - only the force acting on you. Repeat on a constant velocity plane, of train. Speed is irrelevant - only force matters.
Now, imagine you are on a roundabout or merry go round. It’s turning once per day. That rotation produces force. Would you feel it? What if the roundabout was twice as big, would you feel it? Twice as big gain? Would you feel it.
What if you were in a plane traveling at 700mph turning fractions if a degree per hour; would you feel that?
What about in a car travelling 30mph, but taking a sharp turn quickly? Would you feel that?
Given the speed an object is traveling, and how fast it is turning: how could you tell whether you’d feel that force of not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
A healthy right wing is one that embraces change when necessary while safeguarding a social and cultural legacy from destruction by ideologues and resentful people who only want to destroy and not to build. We don’t have that right now but it’s what I hope emerges and what I’m trying to build in a tiny way with my own family and of course through poasting online
I absolutely and very strongly agree with you on this, wholeheartedly and completely - the biggest risk from the current levels of polarization and nature of political conversation ; for both sides is that the counter narrative is often trolling, snipey comments, or plain insults.
I am incredibly left wing when it comes to how things *should* be; but am an incredible realist and am much further to the Center when I consider how things *can* be. I think that Post-scarcity communism - as with Star Trek - could potentially be possible, but it took a hundred years, first contact and global nuclear war; and A -> B is not practically possible right now.
All forms of social or governmental change has risks, even if policy isn’t driven solely by ideologues; without robust intellectual challenge and criticism from the right - the current political environment there is not enough valid scrutiny that is taken seriously. After all if you have 999 / 1000 people screaming at you for wanting to destroy the county with socialism for suggesting people should have free healthcare - it’s harder to hear the one remaining voice.
So I agree with you here, we need a strong, coherent, intellectually honest conservative voice in the country.
Saying that: from a purely subjective position - I don’t think market liberalism and traditional conservatism is going to cut if right now, but that’s a story for a different thread.
I am incredibly left wing when it comes to how things *should* be; but am an incredible realist and am much further to the Center when I consider how things *can* be. I think that Post-scarcity communism - as with Star Trek - could potentially be possible, but it took a hundred years, first contact and global nuclear war; and A -> B is not practically possible right now.
All forms of social or governmental change has risks, even if policy isn’t driven solely by ideologues; without robust intellectual challenge and criticism from the right - the current political environment there is not enough valid scrutiny that is taken seriously. After all if you have 999 / 1000 people screaming at you for wanting to destroy the county with socialism for suggesting people should have free healthcare - it’s harder to hear the one remaining voice.
So I agree with you here, we need a strong, coherent, intellectually honest conservative voice in the country.
Saying that: from a purely subjective position - I don’t think market liberalism and traditional conservatism is going to cut if right now, but that’s a story for a different thread.
“This is basically you’re entire double post. “Sure, you can point out things the left does but I will dismiss it because I sort of agree with it or at least understand where they come from, whereas I subjectively find what the right does to be disgusting and will talk about it in scary terms”
Not really - don’t get me wrong, I think that’s true, and I don’t think it’s necessarily a subjective opinion on many , but not all fronts either - but that’s not actually the point I was making.
The point I was making - to you specifically - was to defend the broad thrust of the list; and the criticism that many of the things on it occur similarly on left and right. I pointed out a number of the material ways both left and right react and approach similar events and situations is often completely different - and of course, thats only really measurable in anecdotes.
We see the those disinformation systems operating here in real time right now.
I actually think both sides have broadly equal issues with critical thinking ; with the potential that the right has a larger contingent of unhinged crazies. The republicans just have better exploited the media landscape way better - in many ways - with a broader push from the top in a way that I don’t think is fully matched on the left.
The point I was making - to you specifically - was to defend the broad thrust of the list; and the criticism that many of the things on it occur similarly on left and right. I pointed out a number of the material ways both left and right react and approach similar events and situations is often completely different - and of course, thats only really measurable in anecdotes.
We see the those disinformation systems operating here in real time right now.
I actually think both sides have broadly equal issues with critical thinking ; with the potential that the right has a larger contingent of unhinged crazies. The republicans just have better exploited the media landscape way better - in many ways - with a broader push from the top in a way that I don’t think is fully matched on the left.
While I could go deeper and broader isn’t my more generalized beliefs - the biggest and most pressing crisis right now is an inability to have a rational discourse; as it will literally poison any other issue that could ever come up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Man I’m a bit backlogged heh.
Before I start let me reiterate something, that you appear to be still missing - even after multiple posts. It’s typified again by your response here.
We are comparing the right and the left. As I keep pointing out, the way in which you are drawing that comparison is not to compare left and right - but to say the left has done bad things - and is thus just as bad ; that is not at all a reasonable basis for comparison, it’s not really a comparison at all.
For example:
On the one hand, the right attempted to overturn a free and fair election - opposes making voting easier, or opening up voting, they mostly oppose RCV, they maintain felony disenfranchisement (remember Florida - the population votes to allow felons to vote - republicans immediately pass law to make it very hard for felons to vote) gerrymandering, voting restrictions and limits on voting rights, and have been electing officials that agree with those views.
On the other hand - Democrats have been opening up voting, making it easier, support voting rights and reform, have passed multiple laws to that affect; and those more open and free laws have been consistently opposed by Republicans.
So, the overwhelming balance of democratic policy, introduced laws, and support within the party is definitively better for American voting rights - and far more favourable to third parties on balance - than republicans. And it’s not really even close.
Is every aspect of Democratic behaviour ethical, and does every individual member or operative of the Democratic Party act perfectly - no.
But pointing to a few specific examples of democrats being bad - which they absolutely are - does not refute or disprove this overall picture: it’s cherry picking. Even if they were just as bad, and you questioned their motivations, the policies and actions they are taking are on balance beneficial; the other is not.
Again - you seem to fixate only on criticizing one side: instead of making a comparison. We are comparing two sides. One of the sides platforms, and most of that sides supporters - a critical point - support policy that actively shifts wealth and power to that oligarchy - the right. That one side during Reagan, Bush and Trump, with the deregulation and tax policies they have pursued have systematically shifted wealth and power to that oligarchy, created the patterns of wealth inequality we see today that are fundamentally fuelling much of the social angst we see today.
You are absolutely right : Clinton didn’t do enough to lower wealth inequality, and raise taxes on wealth enough, and stop runaway control of many corporations; nor did he really defend labour enough. Obama - didn’t do enough either; still both limited military spending, Clinton raised taxes on the rich; there was various restrictions like the CFPB and Dodd Frank. And more.
I absolutely agree that Obama should done stuff like breaking up the big banks; absolutely should have done way more to prosecute bankers and done so much more. And I would agree that not enough is being done now. Clinton shouldn’t have signed the Republican championed deregulation of the banks that in part led to the financial crisis
But complaining about the inaction of Obama and Clinton, when the Republicans have systematically transferred power and wealth to these groups; and whose policy platform is to explicitly empower them; and who’s misinformation machine is actually fighting to attack and poison any conversation about an alternative: branding people trying to talk about how to disempower them as socialists; it demonstrates - yet again - how democrats are held and compared to this dishonestly high standard; in part a product of the muddying the waters caused by the very misinformation machine we’re talking about.
One governors actions in the middle of a health crisis to enforce a temporary health measure : vs a widespread pushing of a narrative an election was stolen, pushes to politically control elections, attempts to overturn the results of an election; explicit ideological interference in education…. And more
Again: your argument is “This is bad” - not “all of these bad things are equivalent to all these bad things”
If you want to assert a comparison - you must compare things.
Before I start let me reiterate something, that you appear to be still missing - even after multiple posts. It’s typified again by your response here.
We are comparing the right and the left. As I keep pointing out, the way in which you are drawing that comparison is not to compare left and right - but to say the left has done bad things - and is thus just as bad ; that is not at all a reasonable basis for comparison, it’s not really a comparison at all.
For example:
On the one hand, the right attempted to overturn a free and fair election - opposes making voting easier, or opening up voting, they mostly oppose RCV, they maintain felony disenfranchisement (remember Florida - the population votes to allow felons to vote - republicans immediately pass law to make it very hard for felons to vote) gerrymandering, voting restrictions and limits on voting rights, and have been electing officials that agree with those views.
On the other hand - Democrats have been opening up voting, making it easier, support voting rights and reform, have passed multiple laws to that affect; and those more open and free laws have been consistently opposed by Republicans.
So, the overwhelming balance of democratic policy, introduced laws, and support within the party is definitively better for American voting rights - and far more favourable to third parties on balance - than republicans. And it’s not really even close.
Is every aspect of Democratic behaviour ethical, and does every individual member or operative of the Democratic Party act perfectly - no.
But pointing to a few specific examples of democrats being bad - which they absolutely are - does not refute or disprove this overall picture: it’s cherry picking. Even if they were just as bad, and you questioned their motivations, the policies and actions they are taking are on balance beneficial; the other is not.
Again - you seem to fixate only on criticizing one side: instead of making a comparison. We are comparing two sides. One of the sides platforms, and most of that sides supporters - a critical point - support policy that actively shifts wealth and power to that oligarchy - the right. That one side during Reagan, Bush and Trump, with the deregulation and tax policies they have pursued have systematically shifted wealth and power to that oligarchy, created the patterns of wealth inequality we see today that are fundamentally fuelling much of the social angst we see today.
You are absolutely right : Clinton didn’t do enough to lower wealth inequality, and raise taxes on wealth enough, and stop runaway control of many corporations; nor did he really defend labour enough. Obama - didn’t do enough either; still both limited military spending, Clinton raised taxes on the rich; there was various restrictions like the CFPB and Dodd Frank. And more.
I absolutely agree that Obama should done stuff like breaking up the big banks; absolutely should have done way more to prosecute bankers and done so much more. And I would agree that not enough is being done now. Clinton shouldn’t have signed the Republican championed deregulation of the banks that in part led to the financial crisis
But complaining about the inaction of Obama and Clinton, when the Republicans have systematically transferred power and wealth to these groups; and whose policy platform is to explicitly empower them; and who’s misinformation machine is actually fighting to attack and poison any conversation about an alternative: branding people trying to talk about how to disempower them as socialists; it demonstrates - yet again - how democrats are held and compared to this dishonestly high standard; in part a product of the muddying the waters caused by the very misinformation machine we’re talking about.
One governors actions in the middle of a health crisis to enforce a temporary health measure : vs a widespread pushing of a narrative an election was stolen, pushes to politically control elections, attempts to overturn the results of an election; explicit ideological interference in education…. And more
Again: your argument is “This is bad” - not “all of these bad things are equivalent to all these bad things”
If you want to assert a comparison - you must compare things.
By refusing to prosecute Bush-era officials for their culpability in major human rights abuses
Read this again:
One side committed egregious human rights abuses, the other rolled back many of the policies that caused them, and pushed to end some of the ongoing issues; but as they didn’t prosecute their political opponents that committed the abuse - they’re just as bad? Come on.
One side committed egregious human rights abuses, the other rolled back many of the policies that caused them, and pushed to end some of the ongoing issues; but as they didn’t prosecute their political opponents that committed the abuse - they’re just as bad? Come on.
The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions.
Absolutely I have no doubt that Obama should absolutely have prosecuted them - other than, I think, two failed prosecutions. And a lot of democrats agree. But again - look at context. Dodd Frank came after (opposed and partly repealed by republicans), the next administration put Wall Street bankers alumnis, oil executives, billionaires, in critical top roles, decimated regulation; gutted the CBFP. The administration before massively decreased regulation and oversight of almost every industry; the Gramm Leach Bliley act that sort of lead to the crisis proposed by republicans, and only opposed by democrats - including most democrats in the senate at the time. Not all - and the bill was signed by Bill Clinton - but let’s not forget where it came from.
The good thing, is that the democrats have been relying more and more on small dollar donations, they championed this with act blue. And it’s important because the more and more political campaigns and actions are beholden to their supporters and not rich backers - the better. It will mean they are going to be beholden to those who feel strongly enough to donate - but it means to win and to maintain power - you have to do stuff that your base likes. To their credit, for a time Republicans did well with Trump for small dollar donations.
HR1 amplified that power by federal fund
matching funding - and would amplify that - but is, of course; universally opposed by republicans.
And this is the real level of the comparison you’re not making. The reality is one side supports and empowers the people you oppose; actively support and promote policies that support them, and attempt to undermine the voting power of their opposition. Whilst the other side doesn’t do that quite enough to clean up after them.
The good thing, is that the democrats have been relying more and more on small dollar donations, they championed this with act blue. And it’s important because the more and more political campaigns and actions are beholden to their supporters and not rich backers - the better. It will mean they are going to be beholden to those who feel strongly enough to donate - but it means to win and to maintain power - you have to do stuff that your base likes. To their credit, for a time Republicans did well with Trump for small dollar donations.
HR1 amplified that power by federal fund
matching funding - and would amplify that - but is, of course; universally opposed by republicans.
And this is the real level of the comparison you’re not making. The reality is one side supports and empowers the people you oppose; actively support and promote policies that support them, and attempt to undermine the voting power of their opposition. Whilst the other side doesn’t do that quite enough to clean up after them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There are no predictions related to the "creation of time" or a "multiverse".
There’s no mathematical model, or physical theory of either, either.
Created: