Total posts: 4,340
Created:
-->
@Savant
Doesn't AUP not care about pleasure?
Pleasure is negative pain, so yes.
Or is it just utilitarianism by another name?
I believe that's the case. The left is consistently utilitarian.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Personally, I dont follow any moral standard.
That's fine.
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Have you considered the LUSHOOK or the ANDE (Anti Death) ethos? LUSHOOK is very common, but since you are Catholic, the ANDE ethos might apply to you as well.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Not having kids but wanting them produces some amount of pain for parents who want them, not to mention you ask 100 people if they want to be dead (aka suicidal) and over 98 of them would say no, implying life is not all too painful given the pleasure it brings in addition to the pain.
But most people that don't want kids are democrats; especially most people who don't want kids due to the belief that life is painful being democrats. I don't want kids, but it's because they are an expense and they take too much work. I want other people to have kids so my social security gets paid for.
Libertarians are probably the most consistent, particularly anarcho-capitalists. Probably communists as well, or really any kind of extremist.
Anybody that is against free healthcare for normal people but supports free healthcare for those in jail for murder (due to an anti death penalty belief) is inconsistent, and this describes a lot of the libertarian party, although they do a pretty good job and it's easy to convince a libertarian to support killing murderers in the name of cutting government spending. Harder to do that for a democrat though due to their AUP moral code.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Check my profile.
Created:
I don't believe the GOP has a consistent definition for what they believe.
Freedom
Then how do you justify your position on ICE, Qualified immunity, and weed?
Protecting innocent life (abortion)
Then how do you justify your position on Universal Healthcare?
Nationalism/Western Civilization
Western Civilization (compared to the 3rd world) is pro choice, pro massive government spending, pro LGB, pro transgenderism, and not religious. Try again.
Personal responsibility (don't make others suffer for your poor decisions)
This argument absolves parents of any jail time for their crime, because then their kids would suffer.
Law and Order (but also rebel pride at the same time)
This is contradictory.
The constitution
Trump said, "Terminate the constitution"
Whatever Trump says we believe
Trump is pro booster and most of your party didn't get the booster. Try again.
The GOP doesn't believe in anything and should either form a consistent ethos or concede all elections and stop contesting the democrats for power and as a result, every state would become D+100 since there would be no GOP opposition. Stop defending a party you can't define the consistent ethos of. Convert to the democrat side [which their consistent ethos is being AUP (anti unwanted pain)], or form a consistent ethos to define your party.
My ethos is LUSHOOK; so I have a consistent ethos and I stick to it religiously. So do the democrats (the AUP ethos). The GOP has no consistent ethos so they should cease to stay a party and they should be replaced nationwide. Any republican/conservative on this site that can't define their consistent ethos should stop being republican/conservative.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
BLM doesn’t mean ONLY Black Lives Matter, it means Black Lives Matter TOO!
What do they want? To end police brutality? Then call yourselves, "End Police Brutality".
We are all human, and all deserve to be treated as such.
I treat humans like strangers, I leave them alone. If I see a woman getting murdered by someone, then I don't try and prevent that murder from happening because to me, the risk that I die is a bigger concern to me than the certainty she dies.
There are 2 types of people: Those that claim to be selfish, and those that are liars.
Created:
There is a reason why, "Black Lives Matter" isn't, "Stop Police Brutality".
It's because BLM advocates only care about black people. Me as a white suburban guy; I don't care about BLM that much. The same would be true if I was Hispanic or Asian (but not black, because only then would it be personal).
Hey BLM; you want non-blacks to care about your organization? Then call it, "Stop Police Brutality" instead of, "Black Lives Matter". Until then, I as a white guy (that is neither proud not ashamed to be white) doesn't care about your organization as I know you guys are only cheering for your people.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Oh, I'm sure Trump has said some stupid stuff.
But Trump is likely to be the past some time soon (right now the present, but it probably will fade away). Some crazy teens represent the future. And it doesn't look good.
Created:
Crazy Leftist (CL) in 2017: We need a plague to genocide 70% of humanity to deal with climate change.
COVID: Comes in 2020.
CLs: STOP THE SPREAD!! WEAR YOUR MASK!!!
Me: I'd rather not. ...
CL: STOP ADVOCATING THE GENOCIDE OF HUMANITY!!!!
Me: Bruh; what were you doing in 2017? You just support the current thing, and you are a fucking NPC. COVID actually does a small part of what you want, and you get so scared. You don't make any sense.
I don't like DeSantis anymore, but he was based during COVID.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If Trump loses office over some crime he did, then your type would be praising it (which you would do if you hate Trump). The election then would be Biden vs Trump's VP (and I know in advance whoever that happens to be, you are going to hate and treat very comparably to how you would treat Trump). Trump's VP would be more electable than Trump is. But if Trump is irrelevant, then Biden would probably step down and give the role to someone else since he did what he wanted (by restoring the soul of our nation, he means making Trump irrelevant).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
The right: Loves billionaires, hates undocumented immigrants, hates trans people. Loves Trump.
The left: Hates billionaires, loves undocumented immigrants, loves trans people. Hates Trump.
One of those parties actually lives around all 4 way more frequently than the other party historically speaking.
I trust that group's opinion more on all 4.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Liberal areas have more trans people and undocumented immigrants and more billionaires (all these groups tend to live in big cities); NYC has 3% of the US population and 15% of the US billionaire population.
Created:
Posted in:
The right: Loves billionaires, hates undocumented immigrants, hates trans people.
The left: Hates billionaires, loves undocumented immigrants, loves trans people.
One of those parties actually lives around all 3 way more frequently than the other party.
I trust that group's opinion more on all 3.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
We can see that the world did have ideological change. Compare 1950 to today.In 1950, LGBT was much more oppressed, much less free. Most people promoted open hate towards gays. There were even prison punishments for LGBT at some point.
That took 70 years to accomplish. Like lets say in 2120, the age of consent is abolished nationwide. You won't benefit from that unless you are alive in 2120.
The age of consent abolishment advocacy that you do will only help people that are strangers to you.
If free speech was banned, and only one side was allowed to talk, quickly they would spread their idea throughout society and they would dominate.But because there is free speech, there is more competition between ideas, and society changes slowly instead of suddenly.
Yeah; there is a place for free speech, but lets say there are 53,278 people in the US that believe the age of consent should be abolished and are very vocal about it (including yourself). You decide it's not worth the effort and you quit. Now it's 53,277 people; pretty much the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Freedom of speech mainly matters in the aggregate; one pro-gun argument is unlikely to change minds, but if no one is allowed to make a pro-gun argument, less people will adopt that position.
This is true, and there is definitely a place for the first amendment. But if I personally never talk politics again, then I know other people will do it on my behalf.
Despite being mostly useless, arguing all the time every day will probably change someone's mind on something eventually. There's a reason the CCP (and probably other countries) pays people to argue online.
This is true, but lets say you are in CA (a sanctuary state) and you are pro ICE; someone else is anti ICE. You actually succeed in changing their mind. Did it change immigration policy in CA? No. You've changed one mind out of 40 million Californians.
People are much smaller than they realize, so if you argue, it should be for recreation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Some of those people are braindead, and incredibly not the one whose brain was eaten by a worm.
You would say that about any left winger that left wing media loves, so it's fairly predictable what you would say.
Not everyone agrees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you have this standard, then rather than a Massachusetts Trump hating woman, imagine if it was a Body builder from Florida making a fuss about these leftist pussies that can't define what a woman is. Treat him the same way you treat this woman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think Trump should debate Biden, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, RFK, and Cornell West and we should have rank choice voting.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Trump made the left anti-porn which is a plot twisty I was not expecting
The left isn't anti porn, but they are anti Trump and they are irrationally trying to get whatever insult they can on Trump, hoping it sticks, even though it doesn't get MAGA people to dislike him.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
More wars plus more inflation is just too much for most Americans. Record credit card debt in the trillions, and nobody can afford a 30 year mortgage at an 8% loan rate. Biden certainly isn't worth that cost. I don't care how funny his Cornpop stories are.
This is a lot of bad stuff done for someone who has cognitive decline and dementia.
Created:
Posted in:
Now, I'm libertarian on free speech. I think all political speech (from burning the US flag to openly supporting the KKK) should be legal and I believe a business should not treat you worse based on your beliefs unconditionally.
With that being said, I believe the freedom of speech is pretty much pointless; it's fun, but it's pretty much pointless. Freedom of speech is only as useful as the ability of you to change the person's mind that you are talking too.
Lets say you are pro life and you are talking to the CEO of planned parenthood about abortion. You can scream, "Abortion is murder." all you want; it's not going to stop them from performing abortions. Just like on the opposite side; a hardcore pro choice activist can call Lila Rose a traitor to her gender all they want and they can say, "Abortion is healthcare" all they want, it's not going to change Lila Rose's mind on abortion.
Now me, I pride myself on being a sick individual; I try and have a half open half closed mind to all ideologies; from communism to Nazism (and everything in between). If someone defends pedophilia, then I don't hate them; but I take their arguments and I wrestle with them rather than insult them for having an opinion pretty much everyone else is strongly against. I respect BestKorea for doing the same.
But I've learned that I am the exception rather than the rule, even on this debating website. You think Roosevelt is ever going to become a Trump supporter or become a right winger? You think Dr. Franklin is ever going to become a left winger? If either of these situations happen, then it will almost certainly take years for it to happen.
And lets say hypothetically, in the very rare instance that you are able to change someone's mind on a certain issue (abortion as an example [which may happen 5% of the time] ) lets say you are pro choice (I'm using this opinion because it's majoritarian; if you are pro life, then substitute that belief instead) and you are living in Texas (where abortion is banned). Lets say you get in an argument with a pro lifer and (spontaneously) you change their mind on abortion legalization. You've flipped one person on your position; abortion will still be banned in that state; you probably won't even get one person who previously voted for Abbott to vote for the democrat, because abortion is one of many issues people vote on, and it is virtually impossible for a fully grown adult to change their mind on enough issues to vote the way you want them too (even if you flip them on one or two issues). What will it take for Roosevelt to become pro life and vote for Trump(or for Dr. Franklin to become pro choice and vote against him)?
The answer is probably nothing realistic.
Both of these people I believe are not willing to change their mind on even a single issue, therefore there is no point in me engaging with these 2 people on any political issue (and honestly, I believe the same is true for probably most people on DART).
There is no point in exercising my right to free speech to these people, because what's the end result? People have parties to stick too; and if Trump says, "We need to do X about Y", then it doesn't matter what X and Y are (unless the parties have already established their claims on the issue), Dr. Franklin will agree with it and Roosevelt will disagree with it.
If Richard Spencer says, "The X are Y", then a lot of people think he's crazy. He would be crazy if X was, "Blacks" and Y was, "r@ping white women". But if X is, "Clouds" and Y is, "raining water", then he might be correct.
The content of what you say matters more than the person saying it.
But most people on this site are unwilling to change their minds, so there is no point in engaging with them on political issues I think.
If I respond to someone whose mind I believe is unchangeable, then it's for my entertainment and the entertainment of those reading it. That's going to be my new plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Um, that did happen. And it was appropriate and it helped.
It would still be going on in 2024 if the only thing that mattered was saving lives.
Bridge collapse is rare but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take steps to prevent it in the interest of public safety.
You should prevent bridge collapses, but it's not like every time I drive on a bridge I'm worried about it collapsing. And it's not like we ban people with kids in the car from driving on bridges because if they have kids in the car, then those kids might die from the bridge collapsing. Risk is in our lives.
I have never heard that. I seriously doubt it’s true.
"by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"(Extracts From Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler (yadvashem.org))
Just because people are trying to stop mass shootings by assault rifle (or bridges from collapsing) it doesn’t mean they personally fear being killed in this way. It means they are prudent to prevent preventable disasters.
Certain things you can do to prevent mass shootings (airport style security around public schools). But collectivism (taking away the most popular rifle in the country from a 99.9999% harmless population) is not the answer in this context.
These are not examples from history and they are not about any particular country or government.
Situation 1 is Medieval Europe and the Nazis. Situation 2 is the communists in Russia (whom you hate).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This was the quote I responded too:
My view is if we can’t even stop mass shootings with assault weapons we have zero chance at reducing the homicide rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
My view is if we can’t even stop mass shootings with assault weapons we have zero chance at reducing the homicide rate.
This view is false. A counterexample:
Mass shooting deaths didn't get eliminated in 2018 but the homicide rate went down compared to 2017: U.S. Murder/Homicide Rate 1960-2024 | MacroTrends
First, the number of mass shootings did go down after the ban and rose dramatically after the ban expired.
Mass shooting victims in the United States by fatalities and injuries 1982-2023 | Statista states that the mass shooting deaths didn't eclipse 50 for a year until 2007, implying that whatever caused mass shooting deaths to become more common happened in 2006, not 2004.
Second, it wasn’t a true ban. People could still buy, sell, and own assault weapons. The ban simply prohibited adding new assault weapons to the country.
So would you do an AR 15 confiscation?
Want to end school shootings? Install airport style security around every school.That’s dumb. That sounds a lot like “Door Reform”
You believe all right wing arguments are dumb, so I'll ignore the insult.
What is, "Door Reform"?
Assault weapons owned by ordinary citizens offers ZERO benefits to society, but the drawbacks are huge.
P1: Society is made up of individual citizens.
C1: Anything that benefits Citizens also benefits society.
P2: People only buy things that benefit them.
P3: People buy AR 15s.
C2: Therefore AR 15s benefit individual Citizens.
C3: Therefore, AR 15s benefit society.
The drawbacks are small (less than .0001% of the US population dies in a mass shooting/year).
By the way, if that one life was yours or your children, I bet you would have a different opinion.
That is true, but I also am rational enough to understand that the odds of me being the victim of that crime are small enough to where I'm genuinely not worried. Life has risks; otherwise going to work would be banned and people would be forced to do remote work to prevent the spread of COVID when applicable (even in the year 2024). Life has risks that must be accepted and the only alternative is consistent, persistent, melodramatic, and unsatiable fear. Fear of mass shootings is a melodramatic fear due to it's rarity.
That is a silly argument to make.
How is this argument more silly than any other conservative argument (all of which you believe are silly)?
Is that what led to Hitler and Mussolini becoming tyrants?
Hitler's argument for killing the Jews was, "By killing the Jews, I am only doing the Lord's work", which was:
P1: I believe Jews have the wrong religion.
P2: Jews have kids.
P3: Anyone with the wrong religion goes to hell.
C1: Jewish kids are going to hell through no fault of their own, but merely the fault of their parents.
Given that hell is an eternity of torment and execution is a small punishment by comparison, it is how Hitler was able to justify the Holocaust, "Save the children" (from a worse eternity in hell, or at least a more torturous version of hell because by killing them now, we prevent them from sinning more and inievitbly getting a worse punishment in hell).
You are obviously consuming media designed to cause fear by warning you of nonsensical conspiracy theories.
Who is more afraid of the .00001% chance or so that they will die from a mass shooting? You or me? I'll wait.
Always? Give me three examples from history
I can think of 2 broad examples:
- Extreme right wing religious authoritarianism (save the children from hell because we believe their parent's religion will send them to hell, so genocide the parents and kids before they sin any more so their punishment in hell will be less).
- Extreme left wing secular authoritarianism (save the children from even the slightest risk that they will die or be in pain so install fear into them about those with power (whether the rich, the NRA, etc) so they are more easily manipulated and even if we do more damage to them in the long run, but it's all for the common good).
I believe in the LUSHOOK ethos and individualism and I don't think my mind can realistically be changed on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
True, but mass shootings are a tiny part of homicides and I care more about the homicide rate than the mass shooting rate.
We had a nationwide AR 15 ban for 10 years. Did the ban reduce the homicide rate? No. It got repealed.
Several states have AR 15 bans. It didn't significantly reduce their homicide rate.
Want to end school shootings? Install airport style security around every school.
People seem to think that, "If it saves just one life, then any amount of government control is justified". This is an authoritarian belief, and one that isn't thought through.
If innocent human life must be saved no matter the cost, then it means the state can force you to adopt as many starving children as you can afford (it is saves just one life).
The belief that human life is priceless is how authoritarianism gets justified; the goal of governments that want more control is always to, "save the children".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why do we have so many mass shootings in the United States? Choose the best answer1. People in America are more violent than the rest of the world.2. There are more crazy people in America than the rest of the world.3. We have incompetent police compared to the rest of the world.4. We have more assault weapons in circulation compared to the rest of the world.
Probably #2 because we don't have universal healthcare (although I don't like making the, "mental health" argument. If Adam Lanza from Sandy Hook was black, then nobody would be making the mental health argument).
I don't care if the mass shooter is black or white; they are both criminal thugs that should face the electric chair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
First they were the party of stupid, under George Bush and Sarah Palin
How?
The party of assault weapons, Bush let the assault weapons ban expire
You are correct, but how is that wrong? The vast majority of AR 15 owners are like the vast majority of Muslims; not a threat to anyone and they want their liberty in peace. People that murder should be killed, but people who have a trait in common with a murderer (whether religion or AR 15 ownership) that are not murderers shouldn't be treated like a murderer.
Then they were the party of rape - remember? women can shut down and not get pregnant when being raped
The guy that initially said that lost re election. I think Kennedy V Louisiana (which argued the death penalty for child diddling was against the 8th amendment) was mainly opposed by conservative judges. Meaning the conservative judges want a state to be allowed to execute child diddlers while the left wing judges thought it was cruel and unusual and should be outlawed nationwide.
The anti-science party, climate change and global warming are a hoax. So are vaccines.
I would say the GOP certainly has the, "climate change is a hoax" and, "the vaccienes cause cancer" types. A lot of GOP people just aren't worried about a 2 degree Celsius increase in temperature over 75 years and got the COVID vacciene but don't want to force people to get it.
Denny Hastert
Dude; he got prosecuted years ago. This is more of a strawman than me saying in 2024, "Liberals are the party of mask mandates".
Lauren Boebert, who got pregnant in high school and grabbed some dick in a theater.
This is more unfortunate than it is criminal if the dick grabbing was consensual.
Now, they are the party of killing dogs thanks to the bimbo Kristi Noem
If you are against killing dogs for entertainment but are fine with killing pigs for food (which at this point, since you don't need bacon to survive, it's entertainment), then it's hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
So she was a loose cannon and said whatever came to her mind (kindof like Trump whom the GOP loves)?
Created:
Posted in:
I've heard he made monkey sounds to a black woman, so he likes at least the racist jokes. But I wonder what the other side thinks of him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Back when she was running for vice president, she was more hated than McCain, but nowadays most of the Trump camp is as extreme as her, if not more so.
How was she more extreme than McCain? To me, they are both generic republcians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What's your evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
To me, she's a generic republican.
Why would someone hate Sarah Palin besides party affiliation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I'm LGBT. Other LGBT people say that their sexuality is not a choice and I believe them. For me though; I feel like I a creative enough where I can be attracted to any gender I want, so for me at least it is a choice.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yeah; I'm not pro black; I'm pro liberty on RSG issues. I also don't think there is anything wrong with a straight person using the F slur (and I'm LGBT).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In some aspeccts; in other aspects (desire for liberty, average earnings), it's inferior to the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You said you want to be stereotyped. Now's your chance!
Lets see what you got.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What if I believe that Japanese race is superior?
Then you would be a Japanese supremest.
Created:
RSG - Race, Sexual Orientation, Gender
Immigration - Libertarian
I support letting brown undocumented immigrants move to the US without worry of deportation. I treat Orthodox Jews living in Palestine the same way and I treat weight lifting gun owning flag waiving rednecks living on Native American Reservations the same way. The left will claim there is an invasion when white people move to a brown country and the right will claim the equal and opposite when browns move to a white country. I support the right of people to commit white flight or gentrification; what city you live in should be strictly your choice.
Qualified immunity - Libertarian
War on Drugs - Libertarian (for weed [left wing drug] and vape [right wing drug]). Legalize both federally. Let states experiment with legalizing cocaine (white drug) and crack (black drug) if the state wants too, but it's a package deal; you legalize one, you need to legalize both.
Reparations - Libertarian
White people saying the N word - Libertarian
Affirmative Action - Libertarian; the only that should matter is merit, although people born in poor households if young enough should have an easier time applying for jobs (this applies to that Camden home and the West Virginia home equally).
The right has a lot of white supremacists and the left has a lot of white inferiorists; I'm a liberty supremist.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What's the difference?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not sure this is relevant or even entirely accurate. Like some dogs are assholes and some pigs are nice. Hunting isn't too needed in our society and most people don't do it. Most dogs can't hunt.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I want abortion to be banned. But it's not the same because:
- The Calf is outside of the mother's womb when killed. Partial birth abortion I think over 90% of people want to outlaw from both parties.
- I'm personally "pro life" on animal killing for food; I'm politically "pro choice" on this. If being personally pro life counts as a fetal vegan; then 84% of the US population has been a fetal vegan all of their lives and the 16% that aren't maybe have killed 1-3 unborn individuals in their lives. Pretty much every vegan has had dozens of animals killed on their behalf, but they merely stopped; pretty much every parent of an aborted baby gets maybe 1-3 abortions done in their lives and never continues.
In our current society, zygotes get treated better than farm animals.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Instead of trying to revive a Frankenstein cuisine
I've had chocolate almond milk before, and at least for me, it tastes pretty good (and you don't have to kill baby calves for it, which was my reason for making the switch).
I also like Orange Juice; I get Calcium and Vitamin C.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What's wrong with impossible meat and chocolate almond milk? Or Orange Juice?
For me, it's extremely easy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't need real life drama.
Alright; can you address my other points?
Created: