Total posts: 4,340
Damn; I'm dumb here by the standards of DART. Whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
Question to the Bible: Should foreigners be treated the same way as native born people?
Bible: Yes
"The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”" Exodus 12:49
Bible: No
“At the end of seven years, you shall have a release of debts … Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother” (Deuteronomy 15:1-3)
Me: If God exists, he can't be all knowing otherwise he would have foreseen his contradiction and rectified it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Executive orders are laws as long as the president is in office. Once corruption is outlawed, the swamp is drained and politicians can't be curropt until I leave office. By the time that happens, all the politicians lost their corruption so they would make sense in advocating against corruption since that's the popular position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
One president who isn't curropt can make an executive order outlawing corruption and any politician that gets in the way gets called out by the president for it so that politician loses re election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not with drugs; but with corruption.
People are going to break the law; this is a given. Otherwise murder would be legal out of the fear that people would do it illegally. But then you need to punish the people who break laws to reduce corruption's prevalence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only way to stop the suppliers of corruption is to reduce the government consumers of corruption.
This can be done by making illegal (politicians follow obvious illegalities more than the citizens do). Then the politicians have to be punished for corruption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe make an amendment outlawing foreign companies from giving money to politicians or their families so the constitution actually does something about it; the penalty being impeachment and death for treason. Then foreign interference can't legally happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The constitution prohibits politicians from receiving money from foreigners, and this should extend to anybody related to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Thanks. I want to run for office at some point when I can afford my own campaign (because I don't want to become curropt). I have a YouTube channel where I post politics. Want to check it out and subscribe?
Created:
Posted in:
Just now from DART, I got an ad that stated that Amy Klobuchar wants to end citizens united
Citizens united is the supreme court case that allowed corruption in the US government.
So why am I calling her a hypocrite? Because she is very curropt herself. About $130,000 of the money she raised is from PACs.
She is railing against the corruption and the swamp that she herself is part of. Typical politician. Lying to your face about being agreeable and then being the exact thing she thinks is wrong with the country. This would be like a pro lifer who tells people to not have sex if they don't want a kid ending up having having sex.
What a joke. Don't trust career politicians like Klobuchar.
Created:
Posted in:
We have heard of the democrats, republicans, and libetarians. What about another party called the western party. They believe in the following:
1) Preserving the values of western civilization. This includes:
1) Secularism.
2) Closing borders with non western countries.
3) Universal healthcare.
4) More miltiary money to invade non western countries and to make them western. Note; western is not a dog whistle for white as places like Japan and South Korea are pretty western as is Latin America.
5) Abolishing the death penalty for all crimes, as the only western country that has the death penalty (the US) resembles the 3rd world in it's conservatism on this issue and others.
6) Legalizing homosexuality.
7) Pro choice on abortion up until the moment of birth (because they seen how much pro life laws have failed in Africa).
8) Pro EU, and wants to change the EU to the WU (Western Union) so the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, Japan, and South Korea can join. The flag for this nation is the flag below because the west was the one that spread these ideas:
In addition, we would also have a Christian party, a party that is consistent with the values of the church and the bible. This includes supporting the following positions:
1) Theocracy, or at least ruling by the Bible and the 10 commandments.
2) More military money to invade non Christian countries and to make them Christian under penalty of death (Deuteronomy 13:13-18).
3) Implementing the death penalty for any crime the Bible deems appropriate.
4) Banning gay sex.
5) Pro life
6) Pro one world nation with the Christian countries.
7) Open borders with the whole world(Exodus 12:49)
8) 100% wealth tax on all assets and the money goes to a central church planner to give to the poor (Matthew 19:21)
There is also the pro science party, that believes in the science. They believe:
1) Climate change is real and should be addressed.
2) GMOs are safe.
3) Nuclear power is safe.
4) They support more funding for education so society is more invested in science.
5) They are pro life due to the science that confirms a fetus is a human being.
6) They support homosexual rights due to the science that confirms that homosexuality is a mutation and therefore someone is born gay.
All of these parties are very conservative on some issues and very liberal on others, just like the libetarian party. The hypothetical western party wants Universal healthcare and to close the borders with 3rd world people. The Christian theocrat party wants the death penalty any time the bible calls for it and wants a 100% wealth tax all because it's the will of the lord. The Pro science party supports both right wing GMOs, and left wing homosexuality. The libetarian party wants practically no restrictions on guns or immigration.
Any issue (such as BLM) that isn't consistent with either party is left up to the candidates for this party to decide their stance.
I don't support any of these parties all the time, but wouldn't it be nice if America had either principled parties like the ones above or had no parties at all? For instance, the democrats and republicans have so many principles that they contradict themselves unlike the western, Christian theocrat, pro science party, and libetarian party. The democrats for instance are pro gun control (so you could say on guns they are pro life) yet they are not pro life on issues like abortion or nuclear power (the most pro life energy source). They claim they agree with the science on climate change, yet they oppose the science on GMOs. The republicans support a small fiscal government, yet they are fine with more money going to the military; one of the biggest social programs the US government funds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You'll find Stalin was quite socially conservative , he opposed ... healthcare for citizens
Healthcare isn't a social issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Democrats: I support war when Biden does it and oppose war when Biden pulls out. I support minorities and am fine with bombing them.
Republicans: I support war when Trump does it and oppose it when Biden pulls out. I am pro life and I am fine with more civilians dying. I support cutting taxes unless those taxes go to war.
Me: I don't care who is in office; lets NOT bomb innocent civilians and waste trillions of tax dollars doing it.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Science and liberalism are on the same search for reasoned truth, while the Right most believes that the essential truth is already achieved.
Both the left and right is pro science. Many on the left deny the scientific basis that a fetus is a human being for instance (not all pro choicers are like this as some see the fetus similar to how many people see homeless people; human but not worthy of government help). At the same time, many on the right deny climate change (some believe in it, but don't want to do anything about it). Many lefties are scared of GMOs and antibody treatments for covid. Many on the right oppose vaccines and evolution.
Both parties listen to their own party rather than the science. The moderates tend to be more pro science than either the typical liberal or the typical conservative.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You continue your streak of uneducated opinions:
As usual, your being an asshole due to your insecurities of being a left wing dot in rural Texas. I recommend you see a therapist.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
People who call themselves libetarian aren't "government get out of EVERYTHING". They merely believe the government should be out of more things than the status quo or the average person does.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If the government gets involved with something, it's authoritarian.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
lol thats not authoritarian at all that's more freedom!?? free college gives everyone regardless of money the freedom to go to collegehealthcare gives everyone the freedom to go to a hospital without going bankrupt
If the government gets involved with anything, it's authoritarian. Some authoritarianism is necessary, like murder and rape being banned. However, if the government gets involved with ANYTHING, it's authortarian.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Left libertarians embrace the view that all natural resources, land, oil, gold, trees, and so on should be held collectively.
This is extreme leftism.
like democratic socialists libertarian socialists reject the idea of authoritarianism and want as little hierarchy as possible as they believe power corrupts.
If they reject authoritarianism and the government, why do most want government run healthcare and free college? That sounds pretty authoritarian right?; the government getting involved with people’s lives fiscally.
If you support this, then fine, but your not libertarian then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It's hypocritical, galling, to live side by side with people who practice customs that one considers morally and ethically wrong.
No it isn’t; it merely means you disagree with people. And not everyone is all liberal or all conservative.
There's two options,One, is separation, people living in groups that practice life, as they see right.Two, is eradication, whether in a mixed or separated society.
The first option can’t be forced (deporting all liberals to Europe or all conservatives to Africa) and the 2nd option is genocide.
Why live with people that practice a way of life that one considers immoral?
Because cancelling someone for their views by leaving them is stupid.
Americans are similar enough in values that we form a nation,
This is false. Name one American value that every single American supports and nobody outside of America supports. Many of our values are shared by Canada, a separate nation. There are no such thing as exclusive American values.
For people with values though, I don't see why they'd want their children influenced unduly by people of opposing values.
Because if your a Republican, having your kid educated by a democrat teacher is easier than educating them yourself.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.
There is not a single policy that discriminates against an ethnic group. There are policies that target legal status (such as undocumented workers not being allowed to work) and this particular one should be repealed to improve the economy and to get people off of welfare. But in terms of ethnicity, there is not a single policy that makes your life worse because of your race, even if blacks are disproportionately effected by them. This would be like saying Hockey or Basketball are racist because with hockey, the NHL disproportionately benefits whites with jobs. With Basketball, the NBA disproportionately benefits blacks with jobs.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
@drlebronski
Heads up!
Created:
Libertarians: Want the government out of everything, whether it is social or economic.
Socialists: Want the government out of everything the left agrees with and want the government involved in everything the left agrees with. In other words, an opinionated and politically passioned leftist.
If you believe in left economic policy, quit calling yourself a libertarian because your not. There isn’t anything wrong with being a socialist, but there is something wrong with incorrectly labeling yourself.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Dicing is bad, but the first amendment protects merely the right to state opinions. Doxing isn’t opinions, so the person who did it should be tried for theft.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
But not everyone agrees in a society. Otherwise arguments wouldn’t exist in person.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
What is doxing?
Created:
-->
@ebuc
they are looking out for health of others ergo vaccine and masking helps all humans on Earth to end this pandemic sooner rather than later.
Don’t worry; if your vaccinated, the pandemic won’t spread to you.
My guess is that your a trumpeteer. Maybe one of the insurrectionist who just got caught in the spirit of the moment and now has to pay a measly $500. fine.
I didn’t vote for Trump and he is not as pro freedom as I’d like. But many people democrats and republicans don’t want to get vaccinated. Vaccines should never be forced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I’ll work on it. Warning received. I don’t think a post would make an area unsafe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
People should vote on, “How pro life are you” and, “How high should taxes be” and other issues. The mean result determines public policy.
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Look up IQ by race; Asians are pretty high.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
I encourage people to get vaccines but they should not be mandatory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You don't stand for anything because your an environmentalist who named themselves "coal".
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
I'm not being racist and your missing the context of post 10.
You don't like stereotypes of black people, yet your profile pic is the stereotypical black person (not intending to be racist, I'm trying to be funny).
If the bolded words were replaced with "a" and the sentence was otherwise the same, it would be a stereotype, but not racist. But these words are in here for a reason; because I was merely pointing out a stereotype rather than endorsing a stereotype. Because of this, I fail to see how this is the slightest bit racist.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
I don't think normalizing jokes get people "sucked down into the alt right nazi territory". I think people who are nazis believed their ideology before they made the jewish jokes. Millions of people make jokes at the expense of races, religions or whatever. The vast majority of these people have no intention of doing anything victim producing to blacks or to jews. I was also merely pointing out a stereotype instead of endorsing the stereotype. If I endorsed the stereotype, then it would be stereotyping but not racist.
If I said girls were slow at track, it would be a stereotype but not sexist. If I said the stereotypical girl was slow at track, that would be merely pointing out a stereotype.
If I said that blacks were like monkeys, it would be a stereotype but not racist.
What I said was the stereotypical black person is like a monkey. I pointed out a stereotype, but I never endorsed the stereotype and I don't plan on doing that.
Created:
@RM
I fail to see how I'm a neo nazi over pointing out a stereotype and I think the mods might be sick of you reporting everything.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Anyway, I can agree in saying that calling Africans gorillas/monkeys is in poor taste, and generally shouldn't be done (especially in their presence). I don't think what TheUnderdog wrote here is appropriate, given the TOS.
I didn't call African Americans monkeys. I merely pointed out that that is the stereotype.
Created:
I think the context matters. If someone is serious about wanting to kill black people because they are black, then that's racist. But pointing out the hypothetical hypocrisy in a post in a joking way while explicitly stating that it was merely the stereotype (I didn't call black people monkeys which would be racist if serious; I merely said the stereotypical black person is a monkey and that it was in a joking matter so this probably doesn't violate the CoC. If I said the stereotypical Asian was smart, this wouldn't be racist and it wouldn't even be stereotyping if I point out that it is a stereotype. If I said that all Asians were smart, it would be a stereotype. Hiring someone because they are Asian on the assumption that they are smart based on nothing but their race is racist). If I endorsed the stereotype I said, it would be racist. If I merely point out that it is a stereotype, then it is not racist.
Moreover, I checked the CoC and it doesn't explicitly prohibit racist talking points, so even if I was being racist (which I wasn't) it wouldn't violate the CoC.
All the CoC prohibits is the following:
The closest thing I did was somehow spew hate speech even though the only group I could even be accused of doing this to is to African Americans (which that's not how hate speech works. Hate is required and pointing out a stereotype is not hate). The definition of hate speech is:
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
What I said was not abusive or threatening and it was merely pointing out a stereotype (not even endorsing the stereotype, but pointing it out).
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
I'm LGBT and homophobia at this point is a joke. People don't hate gay people and I recommend gay people quit acting like speech police and quit spreading HIV for the health system to inevitably treat due to their sickening promiscuity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
You don't like stereotypes of black people, yet your profile pic is the stereotypical black person (not intending to be racist, I'm trying to be funny).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Nobody here knows you; your the new kid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Teratomas have specialized cells but can never be a human being.
True, but they don't have a brain so they aren't human. I think brain cells start to develop in fetuses within 6 weeks based on the research I did a long time ago (it might be wrong).
There are fetal defects incompatible with life.
There would be exceptions if the defect is incompatible with life. I don't think this is all cases of abortion. If the kid is autistic, the kid can live. If the kid is going to not have 2 arms, that also shouldn't be a death sentence. But there may be times where a fetal defect results in death.
Men sometimes push women to get abortions - who should do community service?
Both of them; if you tell someone to commit a murder, you and the person who did it get tried for murder. Therefore both parties would be tried for the crime of abortion if not performed when legally allowed with the community service. I'd like it if it was feasible to punish it more, but it's too common for that. Abortion is going to have to be significantly more rare to get that done though. Free contraception can get that done though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I don't care if a rock gets removed. It's a rock. While democrats and republicans are focused on the culture war, the treasury is being robbed by corporate welfare. Quit falling for culture war distractions and start focusing on substantive policies. I don't care if a rock gets removed. It's a fucking rock! Who cares?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Change my mind. How is a post this controversial responseless?
I think common sense confirms this.
To figure out which is more lenient, a life where although not free, you have all your living expenses paid for, you get to meet new people, and you don't have to worry about any economic thing or someone killing you, you ought to ask the people serving life in jail if they would prefer death.
If they preferred death, they would have committed suicide or at least want to. Yet most murderers don't want to commit suicide. Some of them do. But in order for what they experience to be worse than death, a majority of people facing life in jail would want to kill themselves. I don't believe the desire for suicide among prisoners facing life in jail is this high and I would need evidence to confirm this.
Are there things worse than death? There is only one way to find out; if it is better to commit suicide than it is to endure whatever pain your enduring.
We are too scared of death. Death is less painful than suffering the every second you are existing in a painful place
Maybe less painful, but not worse for you. Otherwise people would commit themselves anytime they endured a slight amount of pain. But some amount of pain is okay if it preserves your life.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Your from China so you wouldn't know.
The SAT tests math and reading scores from 200 to 800 and the average score is about a 500 for both, the standard deviation is about 100 and it's normally and unimodally distributed. My math score is 690 and my reading score is about a 520. My math score is awesome but my reading score probably sucks compared to the smart people on here. My total is 1210.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If a female takes any drugs that kill a zygote, similar to if a female took drugs that killed cancer (the genetic makeup of a zygote and a cancer cell is both unspecialized cell matter) then I would have no objection. I'm pretty libetarian on drugs, so I am fine with her using drugs and I don't consider a zygote to be a human being. I don't think a female would use a drug to kill a zygote unless they got a drug for the purpose of an abortion. I don't think a pregnant women drinking beer will cause fetal problems in the future if currently pregnant with a zygote unless the zygote gets killed in the process. I think alcohol for a zygote is either a death sentence or nothing, and I'm leaning more towards a death sentence due to what alcohol generally does to pregnencies.
I don't think zygotes should be given more rights than a cancer cell since that is all they are at that point during pregnency.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
So America happens to get the more educated Asians, whereas the ones that stay in Asia tend to be dumber than the ones that move here?
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Some kind of jail sentence seems reasonable.
There are 2 reasons why I don't want to jail someone for sperm jacking.
1) They are pregnant when you put them in jail and this could lead to a miscarry.
2) Taxpayers have to pay for the living expenses of a terrible person.
There has to be another way to punish sperm jackers.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect all men to get vasectomies, just so they don't get sperm jacked.
I don't either, but if your unwilling to get a vastectomy and you don't want kids, I'd say not having sex with women is the easiest way to avoid getting sperm jacked.
It think it would be easier to punish the women in the few instances where it did happen, rather than vasectomizing all men just in case they get sperm jacked.
The women who sperm jack should get punished, but I don't know how to punish them. A fine is too easy. The death penalty is too cruel. Jail involves jailing a pregnant female and wasting taxpayer dollars to keep a terrible person alive. I don't know how they can reasonably be punished.
I'd even go a step further and argue that casual sex should be societally shunned, but that's another argument.
The problem with this is that 97% of society has sex outside of marriage. Good luck shunning 97% of society.
However, my point was that your 'if he leaves he's guilty' standard is an invitation for toxic women to attempt to entrap men.
Toxic males and females exist, but how do you prove a guy was sperm jacked? I think if sperm jacking is illegal, it would lead to females hiding their behavior (maybe throwing out the condom) and the cops have no idea if the guy was sperm jacked or not.
Still, this process does cost money and time
It should be free to adopt. Then foster systems are emptied and abortion rates plummet due to the lack of fear of foster care.
Still, it's better that we avoid adoption altogether and encourage children's biological parents to raise them in a stable relationship.
Unfortunately, some parents (like a sperm jacked dad) aren't going to be in a stable relationship. If I had to pick between the dichotomy of a kid being raised by a single mom who is a sperm jacker or being raised by 2 competent foster parents, I would pick the ladder. Single motherhood destroys families.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Well how did Asians acquire that wealth if not due to their intelligence?
Created: