Total posts: 866
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It means he wants the merit, but doesnt want it through Trump.
That's fine; the person that unifies the US and Canada into one nation could be Obama for all I care; it should occur.
They can change the government if they want. Its their choice. They choose Canada over USA.
But then what's their reason for it? It's usually M4A (which this is a logical reason, but it's refutable even without trashing M4A it's self).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If the majority of Canadians wanted to join the US, then would you be on board with it?Maybe if 70% of people wanted it, and the rights of remaining 30% were guaranteed.
What right(s) are you referring too?
Anyone that is against the US annexing Canada solely because most Canadians don't want it is really neutral on the issueNeutral =/= againstI dont even know where you get these ideas.
Your ONLY reason for being against it is the fact that that's the majority position (so it's conforming to the society, really instead of having an opinion independent of society (not even necessarily contrarian, but independent))).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Americans respect Canada more.
But they respect America more than Canada (otherwise they would move to Canada).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Because Trump.
How about the left stop automatically disagreeing with everything Trump stands for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
America has no say in the future of either country.
So are you then telling me that you don't stand with Ukraine? Because then you are only advocating for neutrality, not a 2 state North American solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
R1, R2, and R3:
Who cares?
I said this statement, but for me, it's ok to say this statement because I provided a rebuttal after the who cares. You didn't here, so you can't play the "who cares" card; I can.
R4 and R5 you actually provide a rebuttal, so then it's alright; but otherwise, it's just low IQ.
R4:Who cares? Size doesn't matter, it's not the meat it's the motion.
Size matters. It's the difference between Russia annexing Crimea and Crimea annexing Russia. The 1st is plausible even if you don't agree; the 2nd isn't.
R5:Emotional argument. Who cares?
I don't want to have to learn Chinese or Russian. Too hard.
Canada is the larger Anglophone nation, so Canada wins, eh.
By land, it's too close to call; by population; not even close. Population is what matters; not land area. Otherwise, the UK is only about half English; in reality; it's like 80%. In Canada; does Nunavut have about as much power as BC? No; because BC has way more people. With NY; Upstate NY has way more land area than NYC; but roughly the same amount of power due to roughly equal numbers of people.
Once Canada annexes the US, they will have the much larger population.
If you want to call it that, then fine. It's the same thing as the US annexing Canada. One state solution; call it whatever you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So do you want Crimea to join Russia? If so, then you got cancelled by the left.Lol okay
I respect the consistency (even though the left thinks you're a fascist now); but understand then that's being influenced by peer pressure.
If this is your logic, then you have 2 options:
- Never agree to have Canada become part of the US whether the position approaches majority status or not.
- Understand that maybe 70% of Canadians don't want to join the US, but in the meantime, try and reduce that position's popularity by changing the minds of other people until it gets below 50%.
I can respect you doing #2. But if you're in position 1, then what would be wrong with Canadian A (anti annexation) changing their minds individually to adopt the new position? Every socialtial change at one point had less than 50% support; annexing Canada should be viewed no differently. If the idea is in the minority, then have the idea become the majority via arguing with the existing pro independence majority.
That doesnt mean I want it to become part of USA.
If the majority of Canadians wanted to join the US, then would you be on board with it? If so, then your position is really just, "I'll accept whatever the majority says" (which is essentially neutrality). Anyone that is against the US annexing Canada solely because most Canadians don't want it is really neutral on the issue because if the majority of Canadians backed the US annexing Canada, then their position would change on a dime. if you're neutral, then come as advertised; you aren't pro or against the US annexing Canada, you're just neutral on it.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I said any merit for Trump must be wanted. You said merits arent wants.
You could claim that; but someone can not want Trump while giving him merit on an issue (or vice versa).
Who do you think elects the government?
The people, but the people elect the government, they don't own the government. You think every decision the PM makes has a majority of Canadians backing him? Not at all.
Again, your position is to take Canada away from Canadians. Its that simple.
Not correct; that would mean I would want to mass deport all the Canadians out of Canada; that's like saying if NYC wanted to annex South Westchester, then that's taking White Plains away from the White Plains residents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Every individual has wants. How do you measure it when it's a collection of individuals?By respecting wants of each to some degree.
That's vague. Be specific.
Same is true for Ukraine holding onto Crimea; most Crimeans are against it.Sure.
So do you want Crimea to join Russia? If so, then you got cancelled by the left.
Then don't defend their independenceWhy wouldnt I?
Because you said you don't like Canada. Like, on Israel/Palestine, I have no connection to either, I just try and call balls and strikes on the issue. But if you don't like Israel, then you wouldn't defend Israel if it's a conflict that's foreign to you (I'm assuming you aren't Canadian, although I could be wrong).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Face it, all arguments used to justify US independence are either emotional or refutable.Rather than becoming North Mexico, I think Canada should annex the United States, we will also need to rename the gulf again, The Gulf of Canada.
Mexico speaks Spanish; the US speaks English; we should be separate.
Canada has 1/8 the population of the US; it's like the difference between the EU annexing the UK and the UK annexing the EU. The former makes sense; the ladder is a nonstarter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Why do you support self-determination for the United States and not for Canada?
Americans want independence; right. But lets say the US didn't have self determinationism. Who would control us? Mexico? Mexico speaks Spanish and the US speaks English; I'd rather not. If the US were to get annexed by Canada, then I'd be fine with that; the only difference between Canada annexing the US and vice versa is the name, the flag, and the stereotypical colors (all irrelevant stuff). There would be a vote as to if the US or Canadian constitution should take over (the American one just makes more sense; each state gets 2 senators; house of representatives is based on population; Canada has an unequal number of senators per province (even where provinces like NB have more senators than provinces like AT despite NB having way less people) and representatives aren't proportional to population). America has term limits; Canada does not.
Canada also has like 1/8 the population of the US, and it makes more sense for the bigger nation to annex the smaller one than vice versa.
But who would take US sovereignty? It would have to be a larger Anglophone nation, and no Anglophone nation is larger than the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
My position is that what people want matters.I dont exactly pick rule of majority as a standard, but more like, each individual has wants and wants of each individual matter.
Every individual has wants. How do you measure it when it's a collection of individuals?
How is it applied in case of countries is complicated, but Canada is a better country than USA.
Here's a meme you should check out:
If USA tried to take Canada, that would be against Canada's wants and would only cause conflict.
Same is true for Ukraine holding onto Crimea; most Crimeans are against it.
Again, I dont feel too sorry for Canada here.
Then don't defend their independence.
You can sit this out. Like, India vs Kashmir; India may be a US ally; but I don't take a strong position on Kashmir independence. I don't know enough about the issue to comment.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Both of those are wants. Whats pro for Trump must be wanted as well.
Often, but not necessarily. If Person A thinks Transwomen are men and is anti ICE, then if they vote for or against Trump, then they're going to disagree with Trump on one issue and agree with him on the other.
Canada = belongs to Canadians.
This is false. Do Americans own Yellowstone national park? If you say yes, then you would have to also say that Bennett Spring State Park is owned by Missouri residents. I as someone who does not live in Missouri, am allowed to go to their state park. If I want to camp there and it's allowed, then I need to pay the same fee as anyone else (even if they are a Missouri resident).
If you have to pay money to rent a property, then it's not your property.
That means Canadian national parks aren't owned by Canadians; they are owned by their government (aka, some of the 1%).
Created:
Posted in:
How come the American left supports self determination for Canada and not for Crimea? If one consistently backed self determination, then they would not only support Canada being independent, but they would also support Crimea joining Russia (as well as any other areas that wanted to join Russia that are in Ukraine).
If your primary ethos is self determination for national borders, then be consistent with it. But virtually nobody is.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Followed by a list of arguments that remove all nuance from what people actually argue and leave out many.
How did I leave out nuance?
Why not argue devils advocate and try to lay out as convincing of an argument for the other side as possible and then once you have done that, attack that argument.
What would that look like?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Answer my question. How am I strawmanning?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Thats just a different term for wants. Wants determine what is a merit and what is a cost.
A want is merely a vote. You Want Trump; or you don't want Trump. A merit is a pro for Trump (or con for Trump and a pro for opposing Trump). Want is a more general term, but the specifics matter, not the generality (because generality is vague).
No, it would be US violating Mexican population, their property, laws...ect.
When the US took over, the Mexican individuals should be allowed to keep the land (I don't know if they were). No Canadian should be forcibly deported from their private property (the only property they own). Public property is open to anyone.
Canada = belongs to CanadiansLosing Canada = losing what belongs to Canadians.
I'll correct this:
Private Property owned by Canadians = belongs to CanadiansLosing Private Property by force = won't happen and I'm not proposing that it would.
Nobody says Yellowstone is owned by 340 million Americans equally (I don't have a timeshare on Yellowstone). They say it's for everyone. A Chad resident can come to the park to visit if they want.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
How am I strawmanning? It could be my tense living situation at home that is accidentally coming off on the screen.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It wasnt even necessary, because if what people want doesnt matter, then you wanting USA to take Canada doesnt matter.
I see your argument. I should have rephrased. What matters wrt side A vs side B isn't the proportion of people that back side A vs side B, but the merits for side A vs side B (with a cost of side A being a merit of side B and vice versa). In 12 angry men, juror 8 was in the minority, but the facts/merit ended up more or less on his side in the end.
Country is made out of humans and owned by humans. You cannot violate a country without violating humans.
It's not comparable.
In the 1840s, the US annexed half of Mexico. If we translate that to humans, then that would be like an American man eating half the body of a Mexican man (totally unrealistic). What fared better, real life Mexico right after the US took them over and the war settled, or a Mexican man that loses their legs to the US in some cannibalistic ritual.
Countries are not people and should be treated differently.
Then so is stealing property.
Countries are different than people. No Canadian resident would be forced to lose their land; it only means they become part of America. If France annexes Walloon, then it doesn't mean Wallonians are forcibly displaced; it just means they are now part of France.
Created:
@ADOL
but inferring that a person or entity "doesn't care" or "doesn't hold a certain principle" because they didn't prevent something is invalid logic if there was nothing they could do or if other factors motivated non-intervention.
So then the argument, "Most Canadians are against it, therefore it's bad", just isn't a consistent argument then.
Why would someone back self determination only in certain situations? On a singular issue (self determinationism), it makes more sense to be black and white. On parties (which are multiple issues (often dozens) wrapped into one) , it's foolish to blindly be black and white with the issue.
1 coin flip is either 100% or 0% heads. 10 coin flips will have a lot of both.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Canadians enjoy a life better than most Americans. Higher education, healthcare and freedom.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If what people want doesnt matter, then there cant be a case for USA taking over Canada, as the latter is based purely on wants.
You didn't bother to read the rest of my R2, which is a problem if you actually want to steelman my argument. If you are 100% certain your mind is unchangeable on this issue, then there is no point in talking to you about it.
But if what people want does matter
So then let Russia take Crimea; most Crimeans want to join Russia. But you want Crimea to be with Ukraine because self determination is irrelevant to you; it's irrelevant to both of us; but at least I'm honest. It seems people prefer lies though.
So either way, Canada stands while your empire rots
All countries are empires that rule over certain swaths of land.
not that Canada didnt deserve to be violated by Trump.
If a human is violated, then it's an issue. That's not true for a country; how did Canada get BC? They violated Native nations to get it. Don't be a hypocrite. Violating other nations is ok.
Really, if you want to be a helping ally of USA, a country who cant respect anyone's boundaries, then having your boundaries violated by USA is kinda deserved as by helping them, you are helping them violate you. When USA runs out of enemies, it starts attacking allies.
So then why are you sticking up for Canada so much if you don't like them for being an ally to the US?
Created:
Argument 1: It's the status quo.
Rebuttal 1: Who cares?
A2: Most Canadians want to be independent.
R2: Who cares? Most Crimeans want to join Russia (2014 Crimean status referendum - Wikipedia, UN poll), you guys don't care then. Why care now? No party is consistently pro self-determination.
A3: Canadians like Medicare for all (or insert any alternative policy)!
R3: Once again, who cares? The 10th amendment lets areas keep M4A if they want to keep M4A.
A4: We hate Trump!
R4: Who cares? He's going to be out in 4 years; the supreme court didn't let him have a 3rd term; he might even be dead in 4 years. He's going to be gone one way or the other.
A5: Canadians will never become American! End of story!
R5: Emotional argument. Who cares? Your emotions don't and shouldn't matter; quit being a retarted Karandian (Karen Canadian). You were slapped too little as a child and that needs to change. Stop caring about your feelings; they're irrelevant. Grow a thick skin you fucking pussy! When you base your arguments on emotion, you become hypocritical and you don't care. You even defend the hypocrisy and then accuse MAGA of being hypocritical. Don't be a retard! Don't form ideology based on emotion you fucking spoiled pricks!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But do you hate Trump now that he is on the Epstein list? Dodging this question or ignoring it implies a no.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
It isn't that autistic people don't like to experience emotions, it's just that they tend to express them differently from neurotypical people. Differences in emotional expression do not equate to a dislike of emotions.
I'm autistic; I'll tell you straight up; I process emotion very minimally. Like, I could see a child get mass murdered on TV and I wouldn't care because it's a video on the internet that happened 4 years ago or so and me caring is at the end of the day; pointless because that child will always be dead no matter how much I care for some stranger.
My dog died 2 years ago; my siblings were in a lot of emotional pain; I didn't really care. I shed no tears; I actually kind of laughed because that annoying dog is out of my life. He's useless and annoying; I'm glad he's dead. Now, I would never murder or r@pe anyone because I think murder and r@pe is immoral. But if I see someone get murdered or r@ped, then I'm thinking, "55,000 murders and r@pes happen annually; it is what it is; life isn't perfect; ending r@pe and murder is out of my control, and being upset about something you can't control is pointless".
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Libertarians, you don’t want to fund wars that kill children? Well, why don’t you fund this war where children are dying?!?!
Only financial reasons; the dead kids are irrelevant if done by a non government entity (like starvation).
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You do understand that funding a foreign conflict =/= sending them our money... Right?
I realize that, but I'm saying the libetarian's only concern is money, not human life.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Killing children is a violation of the non-aggression principle, so libertarians would care.
Fair. But if the children were dying and the government had no role in it, then the libetarians wouldn't care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I am willing to hate everyone on that list; are you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The term is used to point to someone who focuses more on being above both sides than holding any particular beliefs or holding any real values. Again, the core value for this kind of person seems to be to place themselves above anyone who strongly favors one side over the other. If that's you, then that is what I find contemptable.
It's not me though is the thing.
I believe:
- American expansionism (the US should annex Canada, Greenland, Gulf of America, Bahamas, Belize, Guyana)
- TWAW
- Abortion should be federally legal for the whole 9 months.
- Murderers and similarly bad people should be beheaded without painkillers.
- There should be a ban on welfare and everyone on welfare should get a job (and if that's a government job, then fine).
- Social libertarianism (very different from social leftism; I don't care if you own an AR 15, use the N word if you're white, say offensive speech).
- Medicare for all should be a state and local issue.
- Pro Israel (even with military funding that I would not give to Ukraine because they give America nuclear strike protection with Hetz and Ukraine doesn't do anything comparable).
I don't come off as hardcore one way or the other. But what I think is lets say hypothetically Trump decides to verbally support a position in the Arminea-Azerbajain war; I would think about whether I agree with him or not, but I think most people who hate Trump right now will take the opposite stance as Trump on this issue and most of the MAGA people will agree with Trump on this issue (even without knowing the pros/cons to each side). If he's pro Arminea because of reason A, then you would be anti Arminea; if he's anti Arminea because of reason B, then you would become pro Arminea.
There is no correlation between being pro Roe and being pro Arminea (until Trump takes a stance on Arminea). THEN there will be a correlation (+ or -). It should stay at neutral even if Trump takes a stance on it.
Created:
Me: Alright; lets make fun of you.
You want humanity to become high IQ so much that you continue to attempt to eliminate the department of education.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
See my issue with it is that it is emphatically and horrifically unromantic.
It's called being autistic; autistic people pretty much can't be romantic as emotions aren't something they like to expierience.
ANYTHING other than this shameless "would you like to have a kid with me" from a pure utilitarian standpoint
Hey; autistic people are extremely direct and talk without a filter.
Created:
Libertarians: I don't think the US should fund Israel because I don't want the US funding other countries, and that is the only reason. I don't care about dead Gazan children; I just want to save money. We should give no foreign aid to Gaza based on the damage we caused Gaza in the past; reparations are horrible. Gazan children don't matter to me; what only matters is reducing the size of the government. If we cared about the Gazan children, then we would support Medicare for all and be like the greens and accept the high taxes needed to save poor children. We will reference children as an excuse to cut war spending, but we don't really care about them is the thing. We just want to save money because at the end of the day, our tax money matters more than poor Gazan children to us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
@Dr.Franklin
Lets put the idea to the test.
Created:
Posted in:
And the MAGA people on this site won't distance themselves over Trump because being on the list isn't a deal breaker for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I'm criticizing the idea to which you didn't refute describes you.
If you think "enlightened centrism" is despicable, then I don't agree, but me refuting it is pointless because I know it won't change your mind.
Again, it's not about what side you're on on any issue or even broadly, it's about whether you actually believe anything at all or are just standing on the hill pretending to be better than everyone else cause you're above it all.
Do you want me to send a spreadsheet of everything I believe in as proof that I have beliefs?
An enlightened centrist is better than a MAGA republican, but still contemptable as far as I am concerned.
If I said anything not left wing is contemptable to you, then would that be accurate?
Created:
I don't care if he has kids IF he raises all of them (even if he's a Nazi; you can't ban Nazis from reproducing).
Edit: Musk would ask rando women he didn't know if they wanted to have a child with him. Legal, but he's mentally fucked in the head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
U.S. vs. China: GDP Output Comparison from 2014 to 2025 states that the ratio of US GDP to China GDP has pretty much always been 3:2 for the past 12 years. I doubt you're correct here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I'm not sure if this is where you were coming from, but when I read this it comes off as an argument made for the "enlightened centrist", which I find contemptable.
Would you rather I become a member of the far right? No? Alright; be happy I agree about half of the time with you then instead of 0%. Optimism is dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thank you RemyBrown for figuring it all out and we can stop debating and join the balls and strikes party
You would need proof that you aren't with the small or big team. You can't have members of a team be the umpire. That's a rigged game.
But you play for the big team; you can't really expect to change the minds of anyone on the small team, making debating pointless. It's not in their brains; it's like trying to convince Jimmy Johnson to become a public school teacher; it's not his drip.
Created:
Posted in:
There are 3 ideological ways of thinking in the US:
- The small party. This party sticks up for the rights of small groups (small is a broad term). They call these groups, "minorities", but the 1% are a minority; this group isn't too much of a fan of the 1% because yes, they are a minority, but they have a lot of power (aka, they're big). Women aren't a minority, but they are smaller in power than men, so this group tends to back women. Elementary School teachers tend to back the small party because they work with small and weak people. A high school track coach that has their team win the most championships is expected to lean differently.
- The big party. This party sticks up for big groups (whether it's whites, men, rich people, Christians).
- The balls and strikes party; that doesn't care if you're big or small, they will advocate for you by calling it like they see it. They're political umpires, basically.
It would be great if everyone was a member of the Balls and strikes party; but it seems pretty much everyone would rather be with the small or big party.
Created:
@ADOL
Alright; but I unblocked you (but you will always hate me and I'm fine with that).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Remember JFK was damn near a communist
Then why do you like him (if you do)?
Created:
Women are progressive in the streets, puritan in the sheets.
It's why they love their gay friends, but the moment he turns bi, they claim he's nasty and don't want to touch him (but if you say that gay guys are nasty because of HIV, then you get labeled a homophobe by people that wouldn't sleep with a gay guy that turned bi because they feel nasty because of the chance of getting HIV).
It's why they love mental retards and they say beauty is only skin deep, but the moment he asks them out, they deny dating him (and if they're honest, then they say it's because he's a mental retard who's ugly).
Come as advertised. That's all.
The world is a bunch of lies.
If an ugly woman who's retarted tries to ask me out and I'm not at work, then I would turn her down because I think she's a fat ugly broke bitch who will be an economic parasite (because people on welfare are parasites and it's fine if they OWN that fact, but don't get scared of the scary but accurate word, "parasite") and she has nothing to offer except possibly horrible sex and a bunch of STIs and that I don't want to date low quality street meat.
A woman could be optimal, 100% in every detectable category; and I still wouldn't want to date her because I think dating is pointless. Sex with a very hot woman can be addicting; I'm staying away.
I want as much power over my girlfriend as I plausibly can get; and if I have sex with her, then I hope I am less addicted to it than she is; women are the gatekeepers for sex; I think men should do some of that too.
Men should have all the power in a relationship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Any intelligent person should be embarrassed by beliefs they held even 3 months prior, but I don't think it's an issue you'll ever have
What belief(s) are you embarrassed by that you had 3 months before that you posted here publicly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If someone has a video on their YT channel, then I assume it's what they still believe in until they take it down or denounce the video in a different video.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Then he should take down the video that doesn't reflect his current position (whichever one it is). Just don't be a hypocrite.
Created: