Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
A quote from you is:
There is MORE individuals who drive, then there are who commit crime - therefore it SEEMS as if you are more likely to be be in a car accident, this is FALSE - the red lining IS on race because if you are black you are THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE MURDERED - you have not actually responded, just made simple mistakes with interpreting math - EVEN if we take your numbers we still have a higher proportion of people who are murdered - but using the ENTIRE population of the US is FALSE - a large percentage are people who are children, who are elderly - they will most likely NEVER murder - the cases are counted on one hand - furthermore - there is a reason why I only used the total VIOLENT CRIMEs, because that encompasses every attempted murder. If you aren't worried about deaths by homicide then you are NOT A MORAL INDIVIDUAL - you are flagarantly ignoreing your societal and your moral obligation. You brought up car accidents as something I should care about - yet now you disavvow it because you realized it was a bad example. You are back tracking, just admit your wrong
You seem pretty angry to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Interstate state travel =/= international travel
Mandatory covid passports aren't just about being able to travel. They are also about getting food and other things to survive. Similarly, citizenship passports are about preventing undocumented residents from getting jobs and legally being in the country. Moreover, what is the difference between state travel and international travel? Where your born shouldn't determine what country your forced to be in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Here are a few of the things that you said that I really don't like that are fairly recent:
1) To any bigoted or ignorant defender of Chauvin, I recommend shutting up and watching this. (debateart.com). Here you called me, "blissfully ignorant". I think you should have the right to say this, but since you have bad decorum, it causes me to dislike you.
3) The Best Traits in a President (debateart.com). Here, you tried to get me kicked off of DART for something that was protected under the first amendment.
You have a history of being very angry online. Kinda like Theweakredge. At least he admits he is insecure and is trying to work on it.
Also as of the time of this comment, you have 8 debates and i imagine your going to forfeit a lot of them. You should be more realistic with what you can accomplish.
There are more examples, but I don't want to spam you.
So, you have bad decorum and you tried to get me banned. You have the right to say the stuff you say, but I have the right to dislike you. If you change as a person, then I will forgive you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ben Shapiro goes on the culture war too frequently. I'd prefer it if he addressed Kyle Kulinski rather than corporate dems
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
BrotherDThomas and RM got into the hall of fame. Not everyone who gets into the hall of fame is someone I respect.
Created:
Posted in:
Ron DeSantis: Mandatory covid passports are tyranny. This is a violation of our freedom.
Also Ron DeSantis: Mandatory citizenship passports (forcing people to come with papers) is totally fine. Freedom can be violated to ensure a false sense of safety.
Me: This guy is who the conservatives are wanting to run for president in 2024. I want a principled president, not a president who is a partisan hack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
So then just don't give refugees free housing, but let them come regardless. Make them earn their houses by getting a job like anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Taxation is the theft of money, even if it benefits a poor person.
Forced childbirth is the theft of labor, even if it benefits an unborn person.
How about the government stop stealing, or keep the stealing to an absolute minimum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You can care about starving people without donating a massive amount, especially if you're a low income earner.
They don't have to donate a massive dollar amount. They just need to donate a large percentage of their excess funds to the cause. I mean, Joe Biden, for all of his flaws summarized it here:
Quotation-Joe-Biden-Don-t-tell-me-what-you-value-Show-me-your-34-65-42.jpg (1200×640) (azquotes.com)
I don't know what EQ is. I'm just not an emotional person.
You can care about something that you can't do much about, that feeling is real and exists.
Most people in the US who claim to care about an issue have a huge ability to do a lot of numerical stuff about that issue. Sponsoring a kid in a 3rd world country costs about $1 a day. The typical person makes $80/day more than they need to survive in the US (Assuming you need $30,000/year to survive). One person can take all their excess money and sponsor 80 starving 3rd worlders with it, and all they have to sacrifice is money they don't need. 10 million liberals(6% of the left wing population in the US) with an average salary and average living expenses can sponsor 800 million starving 3rd worlders and eliminate world hunger.
Despite this, most people don't feel like contributing, so they may claim, "I want to end world hunger!" But actions speak louder than words. There is nothing wrong with refusing to help out hungry people. But come as advertised. Neither the bleeding heart liberal nor myself is helping as many starving 3rd worlders as we can, so we are both selfish. At least I'm honest about it, and honesty is a good trait to have.
If yoy don't care about cops and how they may mistreat people, especially when it's based on something as severely wrong as racism, then kindly state your position.
I don't care about extremely rare events, like the cops killing a very few number of people.
You couldn't give a duck about the suffering if the arbitrary number doesn't fit your arbitrary scale right?
I wouldn't call my scale arbitrary. I'd call it proportional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
you'd realise that not only can ome care both about starvation and cop brutality but furthermore that an issue close to home even if numerically smaller, draws higher rmotional intensity by default.
People don't care about starving 3rd worlders, otherwise they would donate the majority of their excess income to help them. Granted, I don't see anything wrong with this.
National problems are more emotional than a comparably sized international problem by society, although I think this is preferring your own group over another group. If someone did this on the basis of race(treating their own race better than other races), they would get viewed as a racist, and racism is very taboo. If someone did this with nations (preferring the people in your own nation and treating them better with government services versus people in another nation) they also would be a nationalist.
I don't believe in racism or nationalism. I believe in individualism (which means I treat myself better than other Americans and other foreigners, and that I treat myself better than other whites and other blacks) but other than treating myself better, I believe in giving everyone the same stuff from the government (which is to keep the stuff people receive from the government as low as possible since rich Americans shouldn't be forced to subsidize poor Americans just like middle class Americans shouldn't be forced to subsidize poor Africans even if they can afford too).
The reason you don't understand this seems to be that either you aren't feeling the emotions or that you're channeling them in ways most do not.
I try not to feel emotions as emotional thinking is a threat to rational thinking and rational thinking I think is superior. I feel hype a lot (which is technically an emotion, but when someone says they are feeling emotional, they are usually referring to sadness).
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why would a single mom want to use the kids against her husband if her husband isn't a deadbeat? She needs all the help she can get with raising kids from consenting sources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If you follow atheist/theist 'debates' you'd think there are only two sorts of people; a) credulous fools who are frightened of dieing and b) megalomaniac and genocidal would-be baby rapers.The fact that 99.9% of people fall into neither category is ignored.
I think I'm in category A, at least right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I know the economic downsides of immigration
How are there economic downsides? Open borders would double the world's GDP (A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer | The Economist).
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So, if a deadbeat dad gives up the rights to a child, he doesn't have to pay child support? I think most deadbeat dads would agree to that deal. They don't care about seeing their child; they just don't want to pay any more money to their wives/girlfriends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Greyparrot
How do you 'rationalise' and then produce emotion? Sounds like you mean how much care you think you should feel as opposed to how much care and anger you actually feel.
I calculate the number of innocent people dead without their consent(pain with these deaths isn't factored in too much), or the amount of dollars taken without the donor's consent in taxes, and try to justify my anger based on that. I also consider the amount of time it happened ago as relevant also.
So 1 person in Minniapolis dying from the cops 11 months ago (George Floyd) doesn't get me angry. Individual murders don't get me angry because they are extremely rare.
But 500,000 people dead from covid 11 months ago(or 800,000 unborn fetuses dead from abortion these past 12 months) gets me more angry, but not too angry. Considering that there are even bigger killers of people (like starvation) worldwide annually that most people don't really care about(otherwise they would donate the majority of their excess income to fight hunger), I'm not too upset with other people dying.
If the US is $28 trillion in debt on the other hand, this is a lot of money vs only 500,000 covid deaths in the US. Using algebra, divide each side by 500,000 and you get $56 million in debt vs 1 death. I'd say being $56 million in debt is more serious than a stranger dying. Multiply each side by 500,000 again, and I can conclude that a $28 trillion is more serious than 500,000 people dead from covid. I am therefore more worried about the US debt than I am about covid deaths.
You gotta pick your battles as being upset about every event individually is a waste of time and energy. That's why I don't understand the pro life crowd. They think 800,000 annual abortion deaths are a national tragedy but 500,000 covid deaths this year aren't a big deal(otherwise they would be comparably upset about covid deaths and they probably could even win some democratic support if they were pro life on issues besides the abortion issue). The pro life crowd should be proportional with their passion to save life. But they aren't, which I dislike. They only care about certain lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What number makes you care and what number makes you not give a fuck when it comes to police abuse, especit when it results in murder or perhaps death via preemptive self defense (from their perspective) that turns out to have been unnecessary later on?
I'd say it's more gradual than that. I try to keep my anger proportional. If police kill 1000 people and something else kills 1 million people, I try to be .1% as angry at the police as I am about the thing that killed 1 million people.
9 million people die of preventable starvation every year(World Hunger Statistics: 23 Thought-Provoking Facts (creditdonkey.com)), yet quite frankly, I don't give a fuck(and neither does anyone that doesn't dedicate a majority of their excess funds to combat the problem). If I don't give a fuck about that, why would I give a fuck about African American deaths due to the cops (which are much more rare than hunger deaths)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The same way you as a Libertarian can be outraged by tyranny even though you can't name half the victims.
Tyrannical governments effect everyone. High taxes impact almost everyone. The cops barely kill anyone, so don't worry about getting killed by cops.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Qualified immunity protects fed, state, local public officials from legal action against them UNLESS their actions clearly violate the natural, legal, or constitutional rights of the offended individual[s].
If qualified immunity allows for government officials to get prosecuted if they violate constitutional rights of people, does this mean that a police officer shooting someone for having a gun (when that right is protected by the 2nd amendment) or a police officer killing someone over stealing a $20 bill (violates the 8th amendment) would mean that that particular police officer would get prosecuted? If so, how come we haven't seen tyrannical police officers being put in jail for abuse of power?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That child is no longer a child of the parent who gave up rights.
So if a deadbeat dad decides he doesn't want rights to the children to avoid paying child support, this is fine? What does it mean to give up rights to a child?
Created:
If a father gets his girlfriend pregnant, she births the kid, and he ditches his parenting responsibilities without the woman copying him, he is a deadbeat dad and society demands that he pay child support.
If a father gets his girlfriend pregnant, she births the kid, and both parents decide to ditch their parenting responsibilities by setting the kid up for adoption, neither parent is viewed as a deadbeat parent and society thinks this is okay and neither parent has to pay child support.
I'm thinking, it shouldn't matter if your wife decides to abandon her parenting responsibilities and her decision shouldn't impact whether or not you should pay child support. Either you should be legally required to take care of your kids or you shouldn't.
If your legally required to take care of your kids, then adoption would be prohibited as this would be both parents being "deadbeat parents", or it would only be allowed if both parents paid child support. I don't think society wants to force parents who set their kids up for adoption to pay child support.
If your not legally required to take care of your kids, then why are we making deadbeat dads pay child support if they don't have to take care of their kids with child support or a parental presence?
Created:
Posted in:
I think Qualified Immunity should be repealed because I don't want state agents being allowed to kill you and get away with it. But there are 2 sides to every coin, so I'm curious as to why the supporters of Qualified Immunity defend their position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't think murders should spark national outrage. It can spark family outrage and that's understandable, but the entire nation shouldn't be outraged at 1 murder. 12,000 murders happen in the US every year. How can people be outraged at all of them if they can't even name half of the victims?
Created:
Posted in:
George Floyd’s death is old news at this point. It happened 11 months ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Then how do wealth taxes work, because most billionaire assets are in stock?
The supply of stock market in the stock skyrockets because the billionaires don’t own it anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Liberals come out as socialist all the time, and socialism is a radical left ideology. If conservatives did that with racism(a radical right ideology), there would be a backlash.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Eh, sure; I'll take anyone's support in politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Thats stupid and no Ancoms actually believe that.
The definition of ancom is according to wikipedia:
Anarcho-communism,[1][2][3][4][5] also known as anarchist communism,[a] is a political philosophy and anarchist school of thought which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wage labour, social hierarchies[18] and private property
So ancoms do want to abolish private property.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
A worker can own a business by investing in the stock market though. Yet they want the rewards of owning a business without the risks. Communism doesn't work at all. It takes from the producers of companies and gives to those unwilling to take entrepreneurial risks themselves. If you want to own a business, either invest in the stock market or make your own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In communism, the workers control the mean of production.
But isn't the business owner technically a worker and he would own what he produces(the business)? You own what you produce. If you produce a company, you own that company. You own all the profits that come from the company and you own the expenses of the labor from that company. If workers want to own a company themselves, they can try and build one the same way the ultra rich have done. If it was easy to be rich, everyone would be rich. Everyone wants to be rich, but no one is willing to do the work.
Those in a commune choose what to give the commune, if it's an anarchist commune.
Your referring to a donation. A communist country forces you to give, it's not voluntary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Corporations owning something is victimless. People owning property is victimless. You owning a computer is victimless. The government telling corporations how to run something that they built is (with exceptions) tyrannical. If you build a $100 million mansion(that was very huge and could house hundreds of people) and the government forces you to house 100 strangers in your house without your consent, it's easy for you to do, but you shouldn't be forced to do this. Ancoms want to abolish private property and force you to house people without your consent, which kindof violates the 3rd amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
This is the real political compass:
Economic right is the same as economically libetarian and Economic left is the same as economically authoritarianism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In theory, there would be a huge government. How else are you going to take rich people's recourses and give it to the poor? This comes into confliction with anarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
So with ancom, there are no classes, but a huge government to make sure everyone has the same amount of wealth?
Created:
Posted in:
If I strawman here, it is an accident
Dialogue 1:
Far left Liberals: We want free healthcare
Far right Conservatives: Free healthcare is socialist.
Far left Liberals: Well, FINE; We'll be socialists.
I'm thinking, "imagine if conservatives did this with racism"
Dialogue 2:
Far right Conservatives: We believe in the all lives matter movement as opposed to the black lives matter
Far right Liberals: Anyone who supports all lives matter is a white supremist.
Far right Conservatives: Well, FINE; We'll be white supremists.
If conservatives in Dialogue 2 did what liberals did in dialogue 1, they would lose elections for the foreseeable future. I guess far lefties get a pass to decide to be far left. It makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
If I strawman here, it is accidental.
Ancoms: We want no government. There should be no state to do anything.
Also Ancoms: We want the state to take everyone's money and distribute it to those who need it. The state should do something here
Same ideology as communism, different names.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
1)Yes
2)No
3)How would I know? I haven't ever escaped North America, and only spent a few days in Canada.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I only care about 2 traits:
1) Whether they committed any victim producing crime that they haven't served their time for
2) Their ideas.
If they have raped someone (like Roy Moore), then I don't care what your ideas are, you belong in prison. If you call Mexicans rapists and say that some are good people (like Donald Trump) I wouldn't care, as I think it should be legal to call an ethnic group rapists. I think it's racist to do this, but I don't consider this to be bad unless it becomes part of your policy. If a presidential candidate says, "Kanye West is my (n word)", I won't care. If a presidential candidate says, "All (n words) should be slaves" or, "All blacks should be slaves" I think this is free speech(so you should be allowed to say it) but I wouldn't vote for you on that basis unless the only alternative candidates were all comparably bad because it's a policy based reason to not vote for someone if they advocate for bringing back race based slavery. I think saying the n word in the wrong context is bad decorum/edgy but I think decorum is irrelevant in a president. What matters is entirely policy that is proposed, unless the politician commits a victim producing crime that they haven't served jail time for, in that case, policy is irrelevant and that politician deserves to be in jail.
I might care about traits that I haven't thought of, but if you see any, let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
1)Yes
2)No
3)How would I know? I haven't ever escaped North America, and only spent a few days in Canada.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Do you have a reliable source to back your claim up?
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
What does it mean to be conservative then (in your view) if your not fiscally libetarian?
If your conservative because of abortion, immigration, or drugs, this is authoritarian, not conservative. There is nothing objectively wrong with being an authoritarian, but if you are one, your not conservative.
If your conservative on guns (but liberal on everything else) there are communists who are very pro 2nd amendment(advocating for the legalization of all guns). True conservatism requires small government on the economy.
If your conservative on family values, this is not a political justification for being conservative as family values are backed by the left and the right. Moreover, conservatives don't care about family values on the immigration issue since they are willing to break up families to deport undocumented immigrants.
If your conservative on religion, religion has many liberal and conservative tenants. It would be wrong to call god apolitical, but being religious does not inheritely make you conservative. There are very religious democrats in blue states like Andrew Cuomo (who merely don't believe in forcing their religion on anyone but themselves)(Andrew Cuomo used his Catholic faith to avoid marrying long-term girlfriend Sandra Lee | Daily Mail Online). There are also very non religious conservatives like Donald Trump, who believe in ideas stereotypically tied to religion (like banning abortion), without using the bible to justify this and instead they use the claim, "It's a human life". Moreover, being religious should not impact your political ideology (unless you are a sermonist/theocrat). Nothing objectively wrong with being a sermonist or a theocrat, but come as advertised.
I don't know why else you would be conservative if you support universal healthcare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
If the government takes 8% of the stock owned by billionaires, then the only way the gov will get money from that stock is by selling the stock into the market. Due to the law of supply and demand, if the supply of stock in the market increases by 8%, this will cause the rate of increase to the stock to decrease by 8% as well.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If another country decides to be communist, isn't that their choice? States rights after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Can you allow anyone to be on DART regardless of age? I have a dream where people are judged not by the number of their age but by the content of their character.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the US has never cared about "freedom" they 100% supported anti-communist dictators in Latin America
Are you saying communism is freedom?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who are you referring too when you say, "Old fatties"?
Created:
Posted in:
I want a world where gay heroin junkies can defend their anime porn with a small private army!
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I try to be consistent. I don't know how I'm inconsistent.
Created: