Total posts: 1,504
These four people, the so-called "Squad", ran on their POC-ness. The fact that they were not white men. It wasn't "I got elected on my merits as a leader and experience as a civil servant and I just happened to be a Latina woman". No, their POC-ness is essential to their political careers. If AOC had been a 29 year-old white male with no qualifications to office save a bachelor's degree and a dead-end career as a bartender somewhere, I can assure you nobody would know who she is today.
For that reason, for Trump to bring up their race even as a bludgeon against them is not contextually racist, though it might fit a technical definition of such.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh wow, it's almost as if Trump holds his people up to a standard of [BLIND LOYALTY], and does away with them if they can't meet that.
If by blind loyalty you mean "don't go leaking sound bites from private conversations of mine to the press in a bid to make me look bad" then sure. But no organization can function unless its members are able to say things and air ideas in private without that coming back to bite them in the butt so far as concerns their standing with the general public. Obama didn't have to worry about this, Bush didn't have to worry about this. Clinton didn't have to worry about this. Only Trump. He is probably the only politician in history who's been subjected to this horrible treatment, because the media has convinced the entire country that normal standards of decency and normal rules of engagement don't apply to him.
The end result of this, of course, is metaphorical anarchy and non-functioning government. And it's the media's fault, because they're encouraging insubordination in the highest echelons of the bureaucracy.
What you'd expect from a [CAPRICIOUS RICH KID EGOMANIAC]. If some part of the operation is [ASKING QUESTIONS] then maybe it's time to fire some people, or so the reasoning goes.
Haha sure, whatever.
When people think that their jobs could be on the chopping block at any time, it usually motivates them to [FIND ANOTHER JOB].
Oh yes, I'm sure that there's a job as prestigious as a cabinet position in the US federal government. Everyone would just be swimmingly happy to give that up.
Past presidents didn't, either because they [HIRED QUALIFIED PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE], [UNDERSTOOD] the extent of the government's issues, [AND] valued [SERIOUS QUESTIONS] too highly.
Obama's entire cabinet was handpicked by a bank called Citigroup. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
And we're now beginning to learn about the catastrophic behind-the-scenes failures of the Trump Administration.
Pretty much every bad thing that happens in the Trump administration is already known, because of leakers. In fact, the amount of actual bad stuff is probably less than what we think we know, because the media's coverage of the Trump administration is akin to their traditional coverage of North Korea.
For example, a couple years back the press floated the claim that North Korea "claims to have discovered unicorns" when in fact North Korea claimed no such thing. But the headline was sensational, eye-catching and got them plenty of viewers, so they didn't care. Basically that same spirit defines their coverage of President Trump. We don't know how much of what has been claimed is entirely or largely fallacious. But it's probably a lot.
It's understandable that no leader would want to be held to that level of extreme scrutiny. Obama never had to deal with that, and so there's a lot that we've only found out recently.
For example, around 2013 the CIA suffered a massive intelligence failure at the hands of Iran. Possibly dozens of agents around the world were murdered. But we didn't find out about this until well after Trump took office. If this had happened under Trump's watch, not more than a couple of months would've passed before the public was made aware of this, because of leakers. But Obama got a pass on this because he was able to sweep this, and probably a sh*t ton of other screw-ups by his administration, under the rug.
Created:
Posted in:
Marriage is a sound economic decision actually. A dual-income household without kids would have a waaaaaaay easier time paying rent (or, alternately, the mortgage) and affording the occasional luxury. Research even shows that married men tend to earn more (a lot more, over the long term). I would presume that all modern people know how to use birth control to, say, put off the first child for at least the first 3-5 years of marriage, or for however long it takes to get their finances in check.
The wedding issue is also a rather arbitrary one. For whatever reason people nowadays often want crazy expensive weddings but a simple ceremony at one's local church, where the bride perhaps wears a hand-me-down dress, and then a family get-together at someone's house where everyone brings one food item and a beverage, with a very modest honeymoon (if at all), would be manageably affordable.
The only real barrier I can see here is, say, underemployed people who still live at home, but save in cases of mentally ill people I can't see that being an issue all the way up to age 40.
The actual reasons are:
1. Unrealistic expectations that one can or must find a "sole breadwinner for a family of four" job before they tie the knot
2. Inflexible and wasteful thinking about finances and budget that lowers the perceived limit of how much they can "make work"
3. Lack of motivation to actually go out there and establish/continually invest in a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex
4. Perceived lack of need for marriage because "I like living alone and I can just bust a nut when I get bored"
5. Desire not to be limited sexually, or to have to give up hobbies and recreational activities (especially after kids are born)
6. Insecurities due to personal shortcomings like obesity or an STD
7. Desire not to have to work longer hours (especially if, say, you're working 35 hours a week in a Wal-Mart and live in a trailer park)
8. Longer times spent in college, and therefore in putting off a full-time career
9. Fear of the marriage ending in a divorce (especially for men)
Created:
Posted in:
The problem is that the government tried to streamline this, like "You go to college equals you get good job afterwards and we don't concern ourselves with how exactly this happens". So college loans get handed out like candy to people who really have no real plan. If I didn't get a full ride scholarship I would be so screwed right now because I'm one of those no-plan people.
The lenders should be more cautious, and them agreeing to accept a loan application should be predicated upon the student having a clear plan for post-college, which he or she would consciously work towards during those 2-4-8 long years. Maybe that means there's a little bit more of a gap between finishing high school and starting college. But in the long term it'd pay off.
The key here is profitability. For a company to loan $50,000 to someone who'll end up working in a Starbucks is insanity, because the end result will be default. A governmental agency or federally subsidized company will naturally be a lot less conscious about this. But if a company has its own @ss on the line in the event that large numbers of customers will never be able to pay back their full loans, it'd very much so he in their best interests to take steps beforehand to ensure that this doesn't happen. Success of the college graduate in the adult job market must be tied intimately to the continued existence of the creditor entity.
Towards this end:
1. Pass a measure that will affect all persons taking out student loans after a certain date
2. Per this bill, if a person enters into such a compact with a respective lending institution in which a comprehensive plan of action is not hammered out beforehand, the student will, after a certain number of years passes from the conclusion of their higher education, have the option of appealing to a special court to receive an order rendering the remainder of their debt non-legally enforceable. This Court will accept or deny claims based on the realized investment-to-return ratio, evidence that the person has made sufficient effort to find satisfactory employment, etc. Every county/parish/borough will have such a court in place.
3. Per this bill, discretion will rest with lending institutions to decide whether or not to accept a loan application. However, they shall not be allowed to refuse on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious or political affiliation, or national origin.
4. Increase in transparency over projected costs of debt repayment over the long-term to the prospective student beforehand. The person about to take out a loan will be required to attend a meeting where said cost is clearly laid out.
5. Price caps for textbooks and related materials.
6. The government will either withdraw from or significantly reduce its participation in the student loans industry. Existing subsidies will be either phased out or scaled back.
(I'm not really an expert in this area, just spitting stuff suggestions there. Even if the government paid off all student debt tomorrow, if the structural causes of this crisis are not addressed then it'll just happen again.)
Created:
Posted in:
Meitantei Konan.
If you want to watch the whole thing (all 940+ episodes and counting), start with the Japanese dub with English sub. Because if you start with the English dub and then have to make the switch when the English dub runs out about 130 episodes in, you'll be confused as to what sub episode to continue with, because the episode numbering is different and you'll possibly miss the long special (Episode 129) which is easily one of the most important episodes in the entire series. In addition you'll then have to slowly re-learn the names of the characters. Finally, the English dub is generally of lower quality.
Do not consult the wiki for spoilers until you're at least 240 episodes in. I guarantee you that this show will last you a long time, because even whenever you eventually catch up the series will still be airing a new episode weekly.
A lot of episodes are anime-only (non-canon) and these can be skipped. If you look online you can probably find a list of canon episodes, though some AOs are good and worth watching.
I suspect that the entirety of this show cannot be found on CrunchyRoll, so you might have to turn to some less reputable platforms to watch this. But if it is all on CrunchyRoll then in watching legally you'll be supporting the franchise and the mangaka.
This show will have a very large cast, usually based on stock characters from anime and detective fiction. But a lot of them are fleshed out as people the series goes on. Ai Haibara is a fan favorite and one of the unique highlights of this series, though other characters are very popular too. This show is WAAAAAAAY better known and beloved in Japan than it is in the West, so keep that in mind.
Since this show has been airing for 23 consecutive years, it's going to have a very large number of anime openings and endings. Most of the music in this doesn't stand out as particularly impressive, but I'd recommend listening to it as you watch anyways. You're bound to like some of it, at least, since it encompasses a diverse range of styles and composers from the 1990s to the present. The longer you watch the more nostalgic you'll feel over some of the earlier music, which is another reason to listen. You'll find that the computer-generated animation is not impressive at all, for which you might like some of the earlier (hand-drawn) episodes better.
This will constitute a very large investment of your time, but for me that was what made it so good. It took me something like a year and a half to more or less catch up, so if you really don't have that kind of time then maybe this isn't for you. For a show like this you have to slog through some boring parts and keep off your phone or anything that might distract you from the viewing experience. Give it your undivided attention while watching. Don't take this lightly, because it's a commitment unlike any other anime you've ever watched.
If you absolutely hate procedural drama then don't procede. If you might find it kind of interesting then I encouraged you to watch. Of course, it's not all procedural and a good chunk of it is character development and interactions with each other. If you're looking for typical anime slice-of-life and drama, this show will not do it as well as others might. So going into this you have to appreciate the entire package.
Created:
Warren was the "media darling" during this debate. When you're the media darling among a demographic that actually trusts the media, you know you've got this thing in the bag. The Republican base might revolt under similar circumstances, but the Democratic base won't. None of the lesser known candidates are going to stand a chance.
I didn't watch the debate, but Tulsi Gabbard is probably the most "authentic" candidate. It's easy to be anti-war for a Democrat when it comes to Iran (the GOP bogeyman since the Bush era), but she's actually been consistent about this in regard to other countries, even Russia (the Democratic bogeyman since 2016). She's even willing to see eye-to-eye with President Donald effing Trump on a few things.
Forget Biden. She's the true moderate in the bunch, even though it basically affords her zero path to the White House.
Created:
Just so we're all clear on what happened:
The US very nearly went to war with Iran earlier today (Thursday). President Trump authorized a military strike against the so-called Islamic Republic, after it'd downed a cutting-edge US surveillance drone, but he changed his mind before the plan could be executed, though reportedly US warplanes were already in the air before receiving the signal that the attack had been called off. I guess he pretty much made the same call here as Obama did when presented with a similar situation a couple of years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Less coed, more male teachers for male students, less stringent school polices, more leeway for teachers to personally discipline misbehaving students. Boom. Problem solved.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I guess we'll see on Election Day 2020. That's roughly 1 year and 5 months away, and a lot can change in that time. In all likelihood Democratic morale will be sapped by the excessive glut of Democratic candidates, all competing to see who's the most hardline and "authentic", bashing at each other for months and months on end. Trump is unlikely to have any major challenger, and he should enjoy the advantage of the incumbent candidate on Election Day. In addition the economy's doing pretty strong right now, and in the words of Bill Clinton's campaign advisers "It's the economy stupid".
I suspect that a lot of people cringe at Trump and the crazy sh*t he says on a daily basis (and so don't want to express support of him) but when ultimately pitted with a hard choice between Republican Trump and Democratic whoever, behind the privacy of an enclosed ballot on Election Day, they'll choose Trump. Especially if that person is someone who would overturn all recent gains made by the Pro-Life movement in favor of unrestricted abortion even in the last moments of the Third Trimester.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Could we at least get some context as to what exactly he said?
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, I got that backwards. Consumer prices are lowered in poor EU member states. That means their domestic industries are less competitive while consumers are able to purchase more from richer neighboring EU member states like Germany.
They get more goods but hard cash is being siphoned out of their borders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The EU exists so Germany can keep an artificially devalued currency, all the while raising consumer prices on poorer countries in the Eurozone. It's honestly a pretty neat racket they have going on. It keeps the German economy competitive in the 21st century, something that can't generally be said about European countries nowadays.
Now, it's possible that rich countries like the UK might also stand to benefit from this, if not for the fact that the UK still uses the Pound. Since they don't use it, there's probably no benefit to them there. Meanwhile, it's been alleged that Merkel's policies have continuously hampered the economic growth of the EU post-2008. I don't know the extent to which this affects Britain, and I'll admit I'm very much new to this subject matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Salvation from the due consequences of our sin, which is the second death. It is eternal separation from God, and as a result an eternal separation from all good things, as God is the source of good things. It is punishment without end, as is the just penalty for the sinner.
Created:
Posted in:
So that there is no confusion as to why this thread was created:
The OP had a discussion with me. He accused me of being "dishonest", of arguing in bad faith, of being evasive, of using logical fallacies, of being brainwashed and incapable of reason, etc.
I have not had extensive dealings with this user. Furthermore, nothing that he said to me particularly offended me. But he apparently was very offended by the fact that I expressed the opinions which I did. So here we are.
If anything is bad faith, it's trying to physically shut down speech you don't like. This thread should not be afforded the dignity of a mod response nor to be the place for any lengthy conversation. It should simply be ignored, and hopefully the OP will cool off soon enough and realize how silly he's been.
That is all.
Created:
Posted in:
As you said, this isn't getting anywhere, because your communication skills are very poor. You clearly cannot understand what I'm trying to say, though I'm speaking in perfect English. We might as well be speaking two separate languages, and you're becoming more frustrated the longer this goes on.
There doesn't seem to be anything productive in continuing this, so farewell. I hope that one day you'll have improved considerably at understanding other people's positions and evaluating them critically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Based off a straw-man. With what you quoted I did not say anything of the sort I simply laid out how awful your arguments were. Now I can add straw-manning with trolling to the list of why you are bad at making arguments.
Again, you denied the statement that "nationalism is healthy, within reason". The only way to construe that is that there is no "reasonable" way to be a nationalist, which means it's bad in all cases.
In what way, shape, or form is that a straw man?
This is a hypothetical that is not the way reality works. Free trade has helped the US more so than Protectionism in the present. Come back to me with a question worth asking instead of saying what if something good was bad and something bad was good? Would you be for what is now good? That is what your question is. You change what things are to get your point and I doubt you even realize it.
Again, though, we're not getting all out of free trade that we could, because other countries have protectionist measures in place that the US does not (or, at least, did not, until Trump came along). That means they can sell their stuff here without issue but we have issue selling our stuff to them. That results in trade imbalances.
Trump is trying to eliminate those trade imbalances by ensuring that they're as open to our wares as we are to theirs. That means threatening them with tariffs, and putting tariffs in place until they give in to our demands, even if in the short term the economy suffers.
Another example: NATO.
Russia is not a superpower. It has no ability to launch an invasion of the United States. Conversely, however, Europe has little to no ability to help the US out in the event of a nuclear war with Russia.
The question, then, is this:
If Russia were to invade the Baltics tomorrow, what harm would that do the United States? On the other hand, if we were to respond in accordance with our NATO commitments (in contrast to, say, having withdrew from NATO prior to the outbreak of said contingency), how many Americans would die?
Even worse, if the war with Russia over the Baltics went nuclear, over 100,000,000 Americans could die, over an issue of relatively little importance to the US.
That is a very real example, because it could happen tomorrow. Everybody is like "Oh my Gott Trump wants to withdraw from NATO the traitor who sold us out to Russia!!!!!!!!" when in fact it would be 100% understandable for him to withdraw from NATO. That's not to say, necessarily, that I'd agree with him doing so, but there would be a perfectly legitimate justification behind such. The NATO alliance clearly does put us in some significant amount of risk, for questionable returns.
^That was the only part of what you wrote which was worth addressing. The rest was pointless drivel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As you have clearly stated homosexuality is a sin so why would the LGBT be accepting of people who don't accept them?
You could ask the converse: why should Christians tolerate the existence of a category of people whose rise constituted an attack on the stability of the church and its values?
Considering that the natural reaction of Christians in the olden days was to regard all sins as worthy of condemnation, it only seems natural that they should've condemned homosexuality alongside, say, stealing.
So imagine if kleptomaniacs gathered together, founded a civil rights movement for themselves, and secured tolerance. You could then be asking, "Why should they be accepting of people who don't accept them? Why should they forgive those mean scary Christians who did bad things to them for thousands of years?"
The difference here, of course, is the modern conclusion that homosexuality is harmless, as in contrast to other things. But they didn't see it that way. And if the definition of sin is focused on crimes against God rather than crimes against man, why should they see it differently even today?
But regardless, both Christians and LGBT are here to stay in this country so the best way for them to coexist is for them to not mess with each other's business.
False. The left are in favor of the LGBT which is why they are defending them not Christian. The right on the other-hand are doing their best to stop progress being made for non-heterosexuals like in places like Alabama where Christians mothers and fathers got so offended that they wanted a station to shut down an episode of Arthur because they had a gay wedding. Christians are not accepting of the LGBT so the LGBT shouldn't be accepting of Christians.
Christians regarded what's going on here as intrusion into their business. They didn't want LGBT stuff permeating into their homes by way of openly gay characters/propaganda on programming slots that they'd assumed was okay for them to let their kids watch.
Now, of course, I can't condone everything that's been going on. But to a large degree what you wrote above does not reflect a fair or nuanced view of the situation.
Your a typical Christian indoctrinated into the wrong thinking. I feel sorry you but that doesn't change who you are or what harm you can bring across. While believe in immaterial things which have yet to be proven you have used that as a basis to dislike homosexuals. This can be seen with you clearly stating that homosexuality is a sin. Since you dislike sin you dislike homosexuals. If that is too much of a difficult concept to wrap your head around you shouldn't be having this conversation and come back to me when you understand how to make a good argument. You have yet to provide a good argument.
Every part of what you wrote here was false, but I respect your right to believe that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The United States is a liberal country which have allowed gay marriage in a Christian majority country yet you think you have an argument here.
"Liberal" is a term that has had varying meanings across time. It could mean Classical Liberal (a vision the Left rejects, based on its visceral hatred for private enterprise and right-wing free speech) or, in the modern context, Progressive.
This country was founded as a classical liberal state, but even the Founders' vision for America was a lot less libertine. I heard once that homosexual intercourse was a capital crime in George Washington's army, for example.
My point is, you can't simply say "The United States is a liberal country" as though anything outside of that vision is an aberration. Different people are going to have different visions of what liberalism is, for one, and your particular vision of such did not come about until modern times. You think the ways our society have changed are a major improvement? Alright. You're perfectly free to think that. But the idea that you're somehow entitled to have your way in this country is absurd.
You can believe all you want about homosexuality being a sin but did that stop gay marriage from being a thing. A celebartion of homosexuality with what you consider a sin? No so this argument doesn't actually hold anything.
This is not an argument. As you yourself have repeatedly said, just because something is right doesn't mean it'll prevail as an institution or government policy, and just because something is very wrong doesn't mean it won't become entrenched as such.
The second and third sentences in this were incoherent so I'm just to ignore it and move on.
Rights are given or protected by the state.
Nope. Rights exist independent of the state. The state's job is to uphold and acknowledge these. But if we were to go by your line of reasoning, there is no such thing as an immoral government policy, no?
Gay marriage is a right for homosexual couples to commit upon. You have yet to define what you mean by right or how they actually have more rights.
That opens up a whole other can of worms about positive and negative rights. I'd prefer not to go into that. It is far from decided a question as to what degree positive rights even exist. Virtually everyone can all agree, however, that we have negative rights.
So isn't it more fitting, then, to say that gays have a right not to be subject to state interference as they enter into marital/sexual unions with one another?
It would have to have been established, however, that anyone has a right to behave sexually or romantically with other people as they please without interference, an assumption not yet shown to be true.
Guess you don't believe in equality as well.
All men, regardless of sexual orientation, have the equal freedom to pursue relationships with women, and vise-versa. What, then, do you mean by equality?
A bait and switch. You have removed the discussion away from homosexuality and went into pedophilia. You have made a reasonable position as in gay marriage (a celebration of homosexuality) my actual position to a ludicrous position that this somehow gives way to pedophilia not my actual position. So basically you are not arguing against pride month more so using cheap tactics to make your position sound more reasonable than it is. I saw onto it and would like you to actually provide an argument against what I am for. If it wasn't clear pride month is not about pedophilia and I don't support pedophilia.
Nope. There was no "bait and switch". I cited sexual relationships with minors as a proof: if the right to have sex in that instance is denied even if mutual consent is given, is sex a universal right?
BTW, I didn't bring up pedophilia. Note my wording here: "Minor" would include a 16 or 17 year old person, somebody who might be emotionally and psychologically mature enough to more or less understand the implications of what they'd be getting into, and yet adults aren't allowed to have sex with them under any circumstances.
Every time somebody brings this up, Leftists have a knee-jerk reaction and are like "Oh my Gott are you comparing LGBT to child molesters" when in fact oftentimes that was not what they were saying at all. Indignation may be appropriate so far as the comparison was brought up with intent to insult, but if used as an argument then failing to address it is evidence that Leftists don't know what they're talking about.
Since that example offended you so much, here are some alternate ones:
In basic training (that is, military boot camp) you're not allowed to have sex, or masturbate. In prison your right to conjugal visits may be restricted. Companies may have policies in which two employees might be fired if they have an inappropriate sexual relationship.
That is to say, the right to have sex is nowhere near as fundamental as the right to freedom of conscience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Your argument pretty much here states that nationalism ought to be valued because Roosevelt was a nationalist and was quite liberal back in the day. These things don't link. Being liberal does not mean nationalism should ought to be valued and you have yet to say that. This is basically saying you say what is and not saying what ought to be.
I didn't mean that to be a winning argument. It was more of a "gotcha" thing...that what the Left likes to frame as some kind of unprecedented fascist threat to America has more or less always been a part of our politics without much in way of negative consequence. Many famed and honorable public servants have espoused nationalism.
That was the gist of it. Nothing more and nothing less should be taken from that.
Nothing of valued stated here. Did not rebut anything I said nor did it attempt for me to understand what he is trying to say. You basically said nationalism is brought and there is right wing and left wing nationalism.
You denied the claim that "Nationalism is healthy, within reason", suggesting instead that it has always been a bad thing in whatever form it manifested itself, though obviously some very good things have come about as a result of nationalism in some form (e.g. independence struggles).
You seem to have a very narrow view of what nationalism is. You think Hitler and Mussolini, though more often than not that isn't the form nationalism takes. Love of country is good in itself, and it does not preclude doing things to improve one's country. The Left nowadays wants to improve this "society" (or, at least, pass measures that they see as improvements), but they do not love the country itself. They separate the two things in their minds, and regard any such love of country as a bad thing. I can think of no explanation for this save that they want the consolidation of the entire world under one global government (ruled by themselves, of course), and that they see nation states as an obstacle to this.
Nationalism means rejection of this vision of one global government, a rejection that I see as good and proper because loyalty to one's country should come before loyalty to foreign peoples. The only explanation for your behavior here is that you reject loyalty to country altogether. I probably cannot convince you that you're wrong, so we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Democratic countries spread more of the blame which is why it is better. If Trump was in charge more can go wrong quicker. Due to the democratic process the left can stop awful ideas like what Trump has with the border wall. If it was an authoritarian state Trump would have already built a border wall. Spent a lot money of without any pay-off. I wouldn't be shocked if Trump didn't allow official documents out about the effectiveness of the border wall due to how awful it would be given by what it is proposed. I am for less war profiteers in office so no I would be against war but not against constituents voting. People elect members to state to represent them when the people carry on with their lives. This is not a problem because if the people put the right constituents in charge they wouldn't be annoyed by their decision while also having more time to carry on with their lives.
And you accuse me of dodging questions...
I'll ask you again. If a leader is doing things that benefit the rest of the world but are not in the best interests constituents of that country, is it wrong for said constituents to reject that leader come next election season in favor of somebody who'll do the opposite?
Problem here is that your wishful thinking with Trump will result in worse consumer prices as in the people of the US will have to pay more for their goods. Credible economists on my side support what I am saying whereas you have Trump and other anti-intellectuals.
Nope. What economists agree upon is that in general tariffs are bad. They do not agree that "making things worse in the short term to advance mutually beneficial free trade in the long term is bad". You're just pulling that out of thin are.
I will admit that at this time I cannot prove that Trump will succeed. He has already seen some success in regards to Canada, Mexico, and Japan, but China might prove to be a whole different animal.
It's a gamble. It carries risks but also possible rewards. That's what's happening now.
Tariffs are tariffs. It is either Trump is taxing goods or they are not.
And I've already explained why this is a fallaciously simplistic way of looking at it.
you have already conceded the long-term
Wrong, I have conceded no such thing. Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Oh my word this response...
Well, I'm writing this on a tiny little phone, for which I'd much rather not type up a lengthy response. Maybe I'll get back to this when I get home.
I will say this: you're not thinking rationally about the subject. Hopefully I can clarify later; that is, if you're willing to not be close-minded and dogmatic about the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You are beyond hope not because you are a republican because you are a Christian. I saw your comments about pride month and realized just how far gone you are when you un-apologetically said what you said.Here is what you said: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1887?page=2&post_number=27Your non-apology if it was actually an apology. If it wasn't even an apology then I am not surprised: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1894?page=1&post_number=13
I apologized only for seeming too overly hostile. As for the main gist of what I said, to apologize would imply that I said something wrong. I did not. Everything or almost everything that I said there was reasonable.
There are billions of people in this world who believe in the Bible and the Quran, both of which regard homosexuality as a sin against God. The modern LGBT movement will not change what these two books say. It will not make people stop believing in what these books say. They're not going to remove a snippet from the book.
And, quite frankly, they not only have as much right to believe what they do as gay people have the right have sex with each other, but in fact their right is greater. Freedom of conscience is THE most important human right in the world. There is no absolute right to have sex with whoever you want; the fact that rape is illegal (or at least in theory) everywhere proves this is not the case, as does the fact that you're not allowed to have sex with a minor even if they consent.
In the modern world we've decided that same-sex relationships between consenting adults are harmless (in theory, at least) and that it would cause more suffering than good to deny them the right to engage in such. Okay.
LGBT and Christianity are able to coexist in the United States. It requires showing regard for the rights of both, but to some degree at least both the Left and the Right have regarded it as a zero-sum game. The Left swings too far in favor of LGBT rights at the expense of that of Christians, whereas the Right would swing opposite if they were not too timid (with the exception of them opposing legislation that would prevent hiring discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgender people, etc).
Since you considered what I said in that prior thread to be unreasonable, then I'm sure you'll think the same about what I've written above. Tell me specifically why I'm wrong. Here's your chance to make your opinion heard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You do realize people back in the day allowed slavery? Is that a reason to carry on doing slavery? No so make a better argument. You can say slavery does not exist now but what if it did. Would you be for it? If you were against slavery you would say no so this argument applied in a different context means you are not logically consistent. That based on the argument itself not on the context.
This argument could basically be made about anything, though I guess so could whatever I said preceding this. My point was, nationalism is far from a recent, alien development in the American civic tradition. It's been here about as long as anything else. Certainly it predates modern notions of internationalism.
It should be noted also that as far as US Presidents go, Theodore Roosevelt is usually ranked pretty high up there. And, in fact, he was quite liberal for his day.
Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.
Nationalism is a very broad concept. It includes right-wing nationalism AND left-wing nationalism. Colonial independence movements were nationalist in character, by definition. It can include aggressive imperialism and isolationism, and pretty much anything in between.
I have a question for you: imagine if a country's leadership, instead of simply acting in accordance with how their constituents voted, decided to, say, spend large sums of money on foreign aid (from the public coffer) and send tens of thousands of that country's young men to go fight and die in some foreign war which did not concern that country's national security. Imagine if they did this simply because they wanted to be buddies with other heads of state and the UN, or because, say, they wanted to win a Nobel Peace Prize or whatever crap.
Perhaps it benefits other countries that such a thing should happen. But the people of that country didn't have a say in it. It was patently anti-democratic. If a populist (nationalist) leader came along and said "Screw what my predecessors did I'm going to put our interests first by no longer doing these things", would that really be so terrible, according to you?
This would of course mean a nationalist would be more of a protectionist than for free trade. No credible economist supports protectionism which can clearly be seen by them disliking Trump's tariffs. I think the reason economists are against protectionism, which would be what a nationalist a for if they remained consistent with what they believe, is due to if the US decides to close the global market. The market will forget about them. China will become an even bigger empire and other countries will profit whereas US decided to leave their trade deals. This would mean countries outside the US will be better off while the US will lose out on market which leads to a worse economy thus not being a leader in the global economy because they wouldn't be in it if we take what Trump wants to its logical conclusion.
This relates to what we were talking about in the other thread. What I said was that Trump was trying to get China to open up its own markets (that is, to stop doing protectionist stuff of its own), and you asked me what would happen if Trump failed in this effort. My answer would be that at some point, if nothing was happening, we'd have to get somebody else in power to negotiate with China to restore the status quo ante bellum (metaphorically speaking).
But we don't know what the outcome of Trump's policies will be. He could legitimately succeed, by doing enough damage to the Chinese economy that the communist regime has to cut a deal to stave off collapse (China operates per the Mandate of Heaven model, in which the Chinese people are only willing to tolerate totalitarian rule so long as the economy's still growing strong). We're taking a chance, but former Presidents were content to allow an uneven trade situation to continue. They weren't willing to try to solve the problem. Trump is at least trying, for which one must give him some credit.
Trump is a businessman who's had fairly extensive dealings with foreign companies and countries. He understands that tariffs and trade barriers are bad for business overall, which is why I highly doubt that his long-term goal is permanent protectionism.
You will carry on making shite arguments and if I am there you best believe I will keep rebutting even though it might not get through to your thick skull just how bad your ideas are.
Good. I'll be looking forward to further discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You do realize that Presidents as far back as Theodore Roosevelt openly endorsed nationalism, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm not saying the tariffs themselves help the economy. But it's harmful to the competitveness of foreign companies for whom the U.S. market comprises a big share of their profits. Eventually countries like China may realize that the only way to remove this ill-effect on their economy is to sign a deal with the US. That's the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Trump's tariffs have two purposes in mind:
1. Extra tax revenue (because this Congress is stonewalling him at every turn funding-wise)
2. To force other countries to the negotiating table as to get them to comply with principles of free trade in areas where they are not right now, which stands to the detriment of U.S. exporters. Opening up China, in particular, would probably be a massive boost to our economy for many years to come.
As for the second reason, nobody expected the tariffs to do their job overnight. Reagan spent eight years playing hardball with the Soviet Union and even then it wasn't until his successor that the Eastern Bloc actually fell. If it's possible that Trump could eventually accomplish what he's set out to do, then clearly he's going to need more time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Well, it always helps to have 80℅ of the media and 90℅ of celebrities and academia stumping for your side in grand unison/collusion without actual regard for the facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Abram/Abraham hailed from Mesopotamia, for which we can assume he spoke something like Akkadian. His lineage did, however, spend several generations living in modern Israel, for which it might've been prudent to adopt the local language, probably something closely related to Phoenician which eventually became Hebrew.
In Egypt they were deliberately segregated from mainstream Egyptian civilization, residing in a piece of land called Goshen (which was allotted to them by the Pharaoh), for which it was possible to establish a parallel society. Under such conditions, there might not have been pressure to change their language to conform to Egyptian standards and speaking the proto-Hebrew tongue might've been seen as a measure of group solidarity.
Case in point it should be noted that as late as WWII many Jews in Germany spoke a language that normal Germans would not have been able to understand, which was Yiddish, even after something like a thousand years living in the area. The Jews have always had a knack for not doing what everybody else does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Whatever language its original recipients would be able to understand. The Bible doesn't say what exactly that was, but we can presume it was probably some ancestor of Hebrew.
Created:
Posted in:
I distinctly remember the first part of the song from when I was a kid, so I managed to find this song online and the more I listen to it the more familiar it sounds. Without further ado:
Everyone in the comments mentioned how, erm, rape-y the lyrics might be construed as. What do you think? Good song or inappropriate?
Created:
-->
@Michael_Hastings
Why does it matter? This person has been a member of Congress for a couple of months. She has no prior background of service in government that might distinguish her. The only title she's ever held as of right now is that of a junior member of the House of Representatives, a governing body which has over 400 constituents. To my knowledge she has sponsored no major piece of legislation which was successfully passed in the House, and then in the Senate and then signed into effect by the President. She is not eligible to run for President in 2020, and I think it unlikely overall that she'll ascend to the Presidency in 2024 either.
Literally the only noteworthy thing about her is the vastly disproportionate and undeserved media attention that she receives, and the notoriety that people on the Right (myself included) have been far, far too happy to shower upon her for whatever strange reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What he probably meant was "the moon program and the mars program are connected, since if we develop the capability to send men to mars then the moon should be no problem as well". He probably should've edited this before posting, but I mean, if he did that then we wouldn't have had the "covfefe" fiasco either, so...
Created:
Posted in:
(D)-A D E F (G)-G F E F (C)-C E F G (F)-A# A (E)-G A
(D)-F DD (C#)-F DD (C)-F DD (B)-F D
(G#)-F G# D F (A)-F E D E
nac
Created:
Posted in:
(Also, if you got two notifications I apologize. I accidentally posted this in the other thread.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Seeing as how my post is probably what inspired this thread, please allow me to clarify on a few points:
-When I posted earlier, it was not intended to target anyone who'd posted in that thread. I simply took it as another opportunity to express my opinion, as always. I didn't give particular regard to the impact that the post might have. If I came across as excessively hostile then I apologize.
The idea that there is prior establishment for LGBT identity in persecution of such is a valid one. Two things about this:
1. You must admit that for a lot of people in 2019 it is "cool" to come out as something other than entirely straight. A lot of people for whom there is absolutely nothing keeping them from living normal lives unabated, and whose inclinations are overwhelmingly straight, announce that they're "bi-curious" or whatnot. For these, no practical purpose of fending off against marginalization is served. It's largely ego-driven.
2. We ought to make a distinction, to the greatest degree possible, between protecting a highly vulnerable demographic and a society actively siding with a certain lifestyle to the strong detriment of religious believers who cannot in good conscience support such. While we have established in the contemporary era that there exists a right between consenting adults to marry regardless of gender, this fact does not do away with religious liberty and that of freedom of conscience, which is the most fundamental right in existence (save freedom from being murdered, maimed, or tortured). I suspect it is the belief of people like yourself that there is no such distinction. But I and many other people disagree. The current trend seems to be towards unlimited retreat of religious liberty in favor of LGBT rights wherever a conflict should exist, when in fact a balancing test should be employed instead. For example, lectures in school against bullying gays serves a productive purpose, whereas pride parade in schools marginalizes those who must disagree.
(Disclaimer: I have little sympathy for those who feel disdain and disgust for gay people for reasons other than religious ones.)
My parents are fundamentalist Christian believers. I had a sister who came out a few years ago. While they were saddened by the news, they did not break contact with her, or threaten her, much less physically assault her. My mother is probably going to attend her wedding soon. That in mind, I suspect that for the most part people who come out as gay in 2019's America are not physically endangered for doing so. That ship sailed a good while back.
Rather there exists psychological and emotional issues. LGBT people, as you've noted, struggle with self-worth, isolation of family and friends, and contradiction between LGBT and the faith they want to still believe in. It is the belief of people such as yourself that things like gay pride will resolve these issues.
If it was literally just their own rights at stake, then I would absolutely support gay pride parades and whatnot. But again, there are people in America who still believe. Their right to their belief must be absolutely paramount. Putting psychological pressure on them to conform in regards to this issue is infringement on their belief and conscience. That's why I believe that people such as yourself should resolve your personal struggles on your own (or with help from one another), without state action to re-shape society into such a form where such issues can be totally forgotten (by way of elimination of any such reminder), because what would be required to pull this off would be nothing short of Orwellian.
What you believe to be the perfect solution is simply one that substitutes the right of one group for those of another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The large majority of those Protestant "denominations" agree on 95℅ of things. There are more denominations than there are things to disagree about, so in large part it's just a matter of what leadership to follow (something that was by no means unheard of in the early church). Most congregants of such aren't even aware of all of what sets their denomination apart from another. I might go so far as to ask you to think of it as radical autonomy of church bodies rather than denominational branching off. If you were to come up with a statement of 10 fundamentals of the Christian faith (save "Eastern Orthodox Church is the only church") then I'm sure the large majority would agree with all of such.
The proof is this: if you travel across the US and visit random churches of different Protestant denominations for services, I suspect you'd find a surprisingly low amount of diversity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No. There should not be a pride month. Something like 40%-50% of the world's population follows an Abrahamic religion, all of which condemn same-sex relationships as a major vice which might result in the eternal damnation of the soul. For devout families to have to send their kids to schools where such is openly promoted and celebrated BY the schools themselves amounts to rape of conscience (and don't forget, their tax dollars are paying for that). It flies smack in the face of the 1st Amendment and shows an utter lack of regard for the faith traditions which long, long preceded the modern LGBT rights movement. That it is legal and tolerated should be sufficient for our generation, and the next. Even if gays think that religious groups were in the wrong for opposing them, that shouldn't matter now. What said religious groups did was 100% understandable, at least. What the movement is doing now amounts to victor's justice, is utterly reprehensible, and does not in any way, shape, or form contribute to a harmonious society where people of different backgrounds are able to coexist peacefully.
LGBT is not something like skin color or ethnicity. It is an artificially constructed identity that some modern people have chosen for themselves based on a pre-existing characteristic which regardless did not warrant the construction of an identity around. Like if there were to spring up a left-handed nationalist organization in the US tomorrow. The creation of new identities separate from the majority simply for the sake of having a new separate identity is divisive. It erodes the common trust and understanding which is the foundation of any functioning society. We saw this in the Balkan Peninsula during the 1990s, in which people who'd lived together peacefully for decades as neighbors were suddenly like "I am a Serb and you are a Croat. I am to have nothing to do with you." That's basically what we're doing now.
The unifying factor in all of this is the Social Justice movement itself because it has formed a coalition against the traditional (white and male) majority. Such a coalition is a poor substitute for actual unity, and in any case it still has the effect of dividing the country in half, along increasingly bitter, arbitrary lines.
Simply treating people like people is the only way pluralism can work. There must be something that transcends identity politics. Instead, we're just sinking our heels in and digging ourselves deeper into a hole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I suspect a lot of textbooks don't mention Tim Berners-Lee, the man who invented the WWW protocol and thus the internet as it exists today. As far as I know he isn't gay. Nor, I imagine, do they mention Hegel, one of the most influential philosophers in history. You can't take omission as evidence of malice. The history books tend to be fairly minimalist, because there's SO much they could add but to do so would take up way too much time and space. So they have to focus on what's important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Turing was gay. Mozart? What proof do you have of that? I grew up learning to perform pieces written by guys like him, and this is the first I've heard. Something like that would not have gone unnoticed, if it was actually proven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I mean, it's not like the people who write the history textbooks for public schools are like "Oh, the guy who invented this or who did that was gay? Let's just not talk about him them."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marc1123
Malaysia is a country which terrorizes its Christian minority. It is among the better-off countries of the region, probably in large part due to its close proximity to Singapore and its situation along the highly important Strait of Malacca. Its reasonably well-developed economy is probably more sustainable than, say, that of Saudi Arabia as a result. However, that has not translated to a people who are tolerant of those unlike themselves. There is popular support for violent suppression of anything that falls outside of the norms of Islamic society. People have been captured on video cheering when gay men were publicly caned. There is also a great deal of xenophobia in Malaysia due to the fact that the primary drivers of Malaysian economic progress these past few decades have been Chinese and Indian immigrants. There is a significant degree of inequality in the country as a result, so it's not solely a matter of simple bigotry, but still.
If I were to visit the country tomorrow, I probably would not feel particularly unsafe as a tourist. I don't recall the country to have been war-torn. I once met a guy who'd immigrated from Malaysia and he seemed really nice. He was big into photography and had even served in the US military if I recall. I talked with him a good while in the hotel room at a convention for nerds.
As for most Americans, I suspect they could not find it on a map, and they probably know very little about it save that it's a "tropical jungle country" like the Philippines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I mean, if that were true then people would just be drinking cream and sugar. Black coffee is gross, but the aforementioned standalone ingredients can't be consumed by themselves. Now, put these things together and you get something quite tasty (mind you, I put stevia in mine instead of sugar).
Created:
Posted in:
Andrew Jackson ought not be removed from the $20 bill, and Harriet Tubman ought not have a place on such. It was always a radical proposal from day 1, something that Obama authorized simply to pander to his progressive base. The far-left press is, of course, trying to normalize the radical proposal by making it look like Mnuchin is somehow the extremist here. The fact that he simply moved the transition back to 2028 instead of cancelling it wasn't good enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
What if God did not desire a perfectly ordered Universe? Perhaps he desired inefficiency within it so as to confer it with diversity of action, outcome, experience, and composition of life and natural formations? I mean, if God Himself is perfect order, wouldn't He want something different from himself to exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Also, if only rich people could afford any CRISPR in the first place then that just underscores the importance of limiting its uses so as to prevent an ubermensch-untermensch dichotomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Normal people will spend money on what is necessary, medically speaking. A middle-class family might take out a loan and go into debt to afford medical treatment for their terminally ill child whose life might be saved by such treatment. But they're not going to do the same just so that their child grows up to be a little bit more handsome or intelligent. The latter borders more on vanity rather than on necessity. As such, one could argue it'd downright be a waste of limited resources (trained doctors and their time) to do so in any large numbers. It would backlog the medical profession, as top-notch geneticists qualified to use CRISPR technology are not particularly common, and those available would be too busy with these basically cosmetic operations to care for people like THIS:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because not everyone would be able to afford gene editing. Thus it will only exacerbate inequalities, because the people who can afford it will far, far outpace the people who cannot (think Albert Einstein vs some guy who lives in a trailer park and dropped out of 10th grade). Literally any person to the left of center should be able to appreciate this.
And that is only one reason. The second is because at this time we do not know what the long-term effects of playing God with the human genome would be. There is a risk that we could end up losing our very humanity in the process, depending on exactly what kinds of edits were made. If it is indeed used to prevent horrific genetic abnormalities then we wouldn't be missing out on anything that was absolutely essential if we were to slow down so that we could have time to gain a full, nuanced perspective on the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm sure they do. That's not the point. Some people, when drawing the genetic lottery at birth, just get really really darn unlucky. They're going to suffer from a young age and their prospects for a quality of life on par of that of their peers is going to be critically hindered from the onset.
The point of such augmentation should be to reduce inequality, not increase it. Since such procedures are inherently expensive, if we allow the elites to create "superhuman" children then that runs contrary to this goal because the social status of normal people is going to be reduced by this development, quite possibly to the point of the emergence of a caste-based society. Obviously such procedures are going to be fairly expensive, so "augmenting everyone so that they're all in the same boat" is not going to be an option, or at least not initially. Even if it should become feasible to augment everyone in the United States, or the Western World, global inequality will still be exacerbated because many people in poor countries will still not be augmented, and so there'd be a large global second-class citizenry.
Right now the divide between an American and a Haitian is "I'm well off and you're dirt poor. It simply concerns what society I was born into, which grants me more opportunity than your society grants you and it says nothing about the inherent worth of either of us as human beings".
But if this happens, it'll become "I'm a biologically superior life form to you. I could crush you like an insect and it would not be morally wrong for me to do so because you're an inferior species."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
No. The policy should be non-intervention unless intervention is strictly necessary (by "intervention" I mean biological intervention) to avoid an unusually miserable existence plagued by unusually poor health at an unusually young age.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Mental retardation, yes. If you're slightly below average then that wouldn't warrant intervention.
Hideous deformity, yes. If you're slightly less attractive than average then that wouldn't warrant intervention.
Created: