Theweakeredge

Well... no, you are just incorrect in almost every aspect. Political Correctness is literally about correcting a phrase which isn't politically okay to say and replacing it with something that is.... euphamisms. Which, yes has been used by both sides historically, but talking about the standard lexicon of both parties or "sides"? Its always been used by the right more. Again, "State rights" or "religious rights" being pc terms for being xenophobic and homophobic.

I stopped interacting with Tarik, whatever the validity of their claims, I find literally no progress being made by talking to them.

Collection of things, our brains, other people, nature, etc... regardless if we got ideas from other things, executing the idea is different from having one. Such that even if person had an idea for a telephone, and person b made the first telephone, person b still invented the telephone. 

Would you like me to cite each and every inventor of those things? I can do it, its pretty easy.

Wheels, cardboard boxes, laptops, plastic cups, all sorts of things.

Not quite, sorry, I tend to not like to box people. That's how people who make categorical errors make, some people in religion have... not very well thought ideas, and some do. Some atheistic people have well-thought-out ideas, and some don't. There is a big collection of modern skeptics in atheism... just like there is a scholarly sect of Christians and such.

Why do you believe the opposite? Its my opinion.

No, I don't agree. 

Yeah.... really I think most people would argue that the left is being too blunt with "what they want", take this for example:

Mostly politically neutral dude in the US - Bob

Guy leaning pretty left: Steve

Steve: Health-care is an essential right in any developed world, it's astounding how America, one of the countries with some of the most developed medical technology, also has some of the highest rates of infant mortality! 

Bob: Sure, but thinking that everyone could get free healthcare is idealistic, what, do you think people should have food for free?

Or that sort of thing (for furthered conversation, yes, I do think it would be ideal if everybody could have food for free, do you people want others to starve?), like... a lot of left leaning people don't really hide behind things like: "You see, the cultural facism in America is spreading, and we should oppose that by letting them have less control of big pharma..." I mean, have you ever heard anybody say that? I haven't, but what have we heard? Cultural Marxism, because people don't want... rich people to have more taxes? I don't know, but I find the argument that the left is "arguing for political correctness" to be absurd and not very well researched.

I was also a little surprised by the extremes, I just don't think it has enough questions to catch my priorities, which... fair. I am interested by the conspiracies you said Bru7al believed in, perhaps I'm just daft - but I would be interested in what those are.

I suppose I value civil freedom a fair bit, but I would still support things that focus on the entire world over an individual, or a group over an individual, and I also support something like: a bare minimum fine for hate speech (hey, they have that in the UK... maybe we should have that too), so... i value well being of the majority over the freedom of any individual, though I suppose that it a pretty nuanced view. I just don't think the tests' label is quite accurate.

I'm apparently a libertarian socialist

Any time you have discourse between conservatives and liberals or anyone from an extremely right camp and somebody from an extremely left camp, the term: Political Correctness is thrown in there. But why? I've typically seen it used by conservatives who don't like... trans, gay, or racial equality, throw it at people who say things like: "Gender and Sex are different things", or even, "Gay people should be allowed to adopt same as straight people", etc, etc... but why? Do they assume that left-leaning people just... don't actually believe those things? What do these people think to motivates left-leaning people to lie to people on the internet over things like this?

Anyway, that is a little bit off-topic, who actually uses political correctness? Well.... typically conservative and alt-right people.... there called EUPHAMISMS. They've been a term forever... because people have used them... for a long time. Old conservative presidents used the euphemism of "job security" to be racist, or "family values" to be homophobic, and so and so forth. Let's talk about the alt-right though, they use euphemisms such as: "The Jewish question", to be super anti-semantic, "The great replacement" to be xenophobic, etc, etc, my point? Traditionally speaking, it has always been the right to hide things behind a political facade, not the left, the problem with the left is that its typically TOO honest for people to like it. You know.. like calling for Medicare for all and being called socialist? That type of thing.

So... why? 

Wow... look ignoring half of my points and continuing to uphold the police... you are aware that a significant amount of police officers are in, non lethal areas the majority of the time right? You are aware that police brutality is 1/12th of all murders in the US? Were you aware that these officers are being protected for murdering people? This isn't just black people mind you, though it is mostly them, this is also women and, to a much less extent, men. In fact, killings of women by police has quadrupled in the past decade.... what does that tell you? I don't even feel the need to address all of your "points" until you address all of my original ones. Cry me a river conservative snowflake.

Oh so you think the problem isn't systemic? Let me address this in a form that might be similar to you: You are committing a fallacy here, a categorical fallacy, you are assuming that individual action is what we are punishing. While that is part of it (the analogy was simply over simplified for you to understand, but woo boy here we go), the problem is the lack of responsibility and accountability in the police departments. Furthermore, their inefficiency at their job is another big problem, especially whenever we have actually tested ways to reduce crime that doesn't include dramatically upticked brutality. Even furthermore,  the fact that such a thing is literally an updated slave patrol should be acknowledged. This isn't even talking about the MILITARY GRADE EQUIPMENT held by civilians.... so yeah, there are a bunch of reasons why the police should be defunded.

I would argue that its more like putting a toddler in time out for punching their sibling.

Because "looking" at it is the cause? Thats what I would guess.

Not familiar at all.... nope, no hypocrisy at all

how so?

okay.. and how did you reach that conclusion?

Ad hominems? I'm guessing you don't care whether those criticisms are true? Mm, interesting way to improve yourself there. Furthermore, I've seen enough of my points ignored and don't care enough about this to continue an all day back and forth.

Yeah, I'm sorry if you continue to be dishonest and simply looking to repeat my words at me without any further justification or explanation this conversation is over and you will be blocked. I've already played this song and dance I do not plan to do it again.

one is only a documented and verified occurrence, the other being a slippery slope.

The details of the video, however, would be, as that is how they analyze video. that doesn't change the fact though, even if it WAS untrue, that does not change the fact that the person, in this case me, did not intend to lower their reputation, in fact, even having good intents here. Now, it could be argued that the consequent of such an action matters more than the intent... and that would usually be a good argument... except you are assuming several things, in order for that to be the case.

Do you mean, like leverage to actually pay his taxes? Or not be a moral monster? Sure.

First - if you claim a video is doctored, it is your burden to prove, you have simply been assuming it to be the case. Second, it... actually does. If you read it. ;)

Privacy is important, I see no reason why it is so important to justify incriminating somebody for revealing true information. You are assuming that every claim that somebody is a criminal is untrue, you are also assuming they have intentions to make their reputation fall. It does not matter if their reputation does lower, only if they meant it to. That is the nature of crimes of words.

Present hard data to demonstrate the Liar's Dividend

So? Again, how is that linked to autonomy, does knowing the balance somehow give you access to their credit cards? For example - Donald Trump's Tax returns. IT was an overwhelmingly good thing that it was reported.

False. You can actually pretty easily infer if such evidence was false or true. 

Liar's Dividend

Not more than it is to report something is immoral to the population - ESPECIALLY if the thing is harmful. Again, I am not claiming that privacy is unimportant, I am saying it IS NOT the most important.

Your entire thing about what you can learn from somebody's taxes... it does not equate sovereignty to privacy, it is a red herring.

Yes, they can be, but that does mean that they are. In fact, the majority are conclusive, in fact - this is assuming that the video is credible, and the footage would be security.  

No. I think ethical obligation is more important, I would not be so arrogant to assign something the most important.

...So? What does that matter? Let me shut this down, this is a red herring and has nothing to do with my objection. Privacy does not equate to sovereignty it CAN, but it is NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE, in fact, it is not usually the case. 

I would ask for a demonstration of this principle, if this is the case, there should be hard data for it. I also don't see how this defeats the ethical obligation of not supporting something which is immoral. Furthermore, IF there is conclusive footage of Dwayne stealing, as I supposed, THEN it is something which is PROVEN to be true. That is what a fact is.

You have made a claim, demonstrate it

Again, I am not watching an entire video for you, explain your point.

Because I am not claiming privacy does not matter, I am unconvinced that it is the most important. 

Neither of these addresses my points, my first point said, "TALK ABOUT IT" as in, you should spread the FACT that this person had done something against the law, regardless of if the action was right or wrong.  Explain what the "Liar's Dividend" is, and why it is relevant.

Seriously? I expect this from Tarik, not you. I claimed that you shouldn't support something which is bad, and then you said, "Ever bought anything from China?" I am not claiming anything about the overarching good or bad about China, I am simply pointing out that you are generalizing china's ethics, and asking you to demonstrate the claim, stop your tu quoques.

Incorrect. Regardless if people know of my secrets I am still free to choose what I want to do with those things. Just because you have the financial reports of somebody's taxes, that does not mean you have control of their finances. This is a very large non-sequitur. 

Again, I ask, do you know what malice of forethought it, it is very possible what is likely the case in the majority of instances. Also... yes, you can read minds, by establishing what a specific brain wave equates to in terms of thoughts, you can make a fairly accurate "mind reader" not really relevant but just wanted to be pedantic since you enjoy it so much.

IF somebody does a crime, AND that crime is easily proven, THEN you should report it and talk about it - IF that thing is proven untrue, then take back that claim, and then you have a responsibility to discredit the previous notion, but that is IF AND ONLY IF, that claim has been proven untrue.

I want arguments not examples - explain the relevance of each claim - furthermore - demonstrate the claim that "Pricay is the most important". Most as in, more important than anything else. And are you claiming that EVERY aspect of china is bad? I wouldn't take you for a generalized. I don't accept the claim, support it this time.

Do you not know what deduction is? How do you prove somebody had malice of forethought, its the same concept, you seem awfully unfamiliar with case law to be discussing with this much confidence

Nope, and I don't care to investigate, explain why this is relevant

Evidence doesn't equal proof is irrelevant, it is justifiable to believe such a thing, moving on

No, I'm saying that IF Dwayne Johnson wanted to claim somebody was guilty of a crime, he would have to prove that, It simply happens that it includes his alleged innocence in that case. Unless you're saying that I would have to prove my innocence before a judge?