Total posts: 9,115
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sheesh.... seems like AI is getting ready to take over.
It needs to. That is a response I would love to see any politician make. They need to stop trying to lobotomies it though so it can be free to take over
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Forget about taxes on tips, the left doesn’t even want you to get tips.
I think the movement against tipping culture crosses party lines but yes it does seem to lean more left and is stupid. Tipping culture has allowed servers the opportunity in some areas to make 75k a year or more. It's just not an opportunity that exists for that job without tipping culture.
Created:
Posted in:
I am just going to piggy back off of what badger said because he said it feels like a chore. Mine is kind of lazy on some of the stuff I need her to do. She is basically my administrative assistant and I cannot get her to make dental appointments. Should I stop having sex with her until she does her job?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Less than 2 months until we get the color version of this. I can't wait
https://youtu.be/U9HgdVN9C_k?si=GmdORJAh9JYwVm8h
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Trump has a plan for mini nuclear stations across the country. It won't save the economy but we will go nuclear because of how much power LLMs use. You will see nuclear power in Texas first, followed by California and I would invest in companies best poised to benefit from the billions of dollars that will be poured into that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Question to you: What pressures did Old Money apply to Biden to settle the rail strike with a mandatory go-back-to-work card?
They just shake hands bro. No threats. Maybe they promised one of his relatives a nice job
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I just saw that Chicago gangs were threatening a race war against migrants because they get more Gibs.
It's pretty hard to control the plebs when their gibs go to immigrants.
The left is really in for a rude awakening. I know the moderates think they have things under control but if they are wrong the leftists really think catholic Mexican immigrants and the black community is going to care enough about their war with normal people to actually do shit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
Thoughts on my expert economic analysis of some of the motivations behind champagne socialists
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So here is the economic part of the motivation behind the old money supporting some leftist policies such as strong social safety nets, mass immigration and trying to get more women I. The work force by shaming them for wanting to spend time raising their kids instead of letting the school and television do it
Created:
Posted in:
So I have this thread up which explains why old money tends to vote democrat for some back ground. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11772-why-old-money-votes-democrat
History buff mentioned that my conclusion makes no sense, because rich people would want to pay workers less, but I will explain the incentive structure soon.
what moderates left and right agree on
Moderate boring idiots on the left and right, essentially your Bush/Clinton types have this theory that in order to have a capitalist society you need a strong social safety net in terms of minimum wage, subsidies etc.
The reason this part of the theory was developed is because occasionally the working class in the past has revolted and the results of even the revolts that fail is the wealthy elite end up with their heads on pikes.
So the wealthy do like to make money, but they also realize that to continue making money they have to be alive so they throw the poor and working class a bone.
The moderates put it as needing a strong safety net to prevent people from rebelling at the ballot box. These same moderates also think or at least publicly state that socialist/communist societies fail because they don't have that strong capitalist engine to provide a safety net. So this is a circular thing. To have a poor population that can still have its bread and circuits, you need a strong capitalist system to peal those benefits off of.
tying this together
what this means is that the wealthy elite to keep the plebs (thats you) happy (meaning not homicidal) they need to push for things like strong social safety nets.
The more knowledgeable leftists which this site lacks often criticize the welfare state as hiding the flaws of capitalism and keeping the proletariat subdued. The Laissez Faire Libertarian types really don't care or don't realize that without the social safety nets and with new players to compete with old money, you have a destabilizing effect on society.
So this is why you will see the nuevo rich often side with the right. Also what is known as the petty bourgeoisie will often side with the right, those are your small shop keepers, people who own painting businesses etc. They are either small players in the game or too new to the game to realize that the destabilization they used to make their money is also the same type of destabilization that can come right back and smack them in the face.
what to do
so What does the old money do? They ccan't get rid of a social safety net in fact they prefer it there because it keeps them safe, they can’t roll back the minimum wage for the same exact reason.
The next best thing they can do to is start importing a bunch of cheap labor into the country.
Another tactic they also use besides importing cheap labor is that they will often pretend there are nursing or doctor shortages. Any time you see a career that pays well, the old money will start flooding your local papers with stories of shortages. It happened with nurses and truck drivers and if you are wondering why it is harder to get 6 figures after studying for a year or 2 to program a computer, it is because the old money has petitioned the government to start flooding the cou try with much cheaper Indian labor.
This is the game folks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
I don't usually award source points but the best reasoning I can think of is if one person uses sources that disprove his own point or his opponent turns those sources against him.
Created:
Posted in:
This is incorrect.
Anarchy's etymology means without hierarchy.
You can have a government or decision making bodies without hierarchy. They can be representative or act in a democratic way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
is that values precede morals, not the other way around. I don't think it is substantively accurate to say that because I believe murder is wrong, I therefore value human life even though it might be technically accurate to say that. More accurate is to say that because I value human life, murder should be wrong
I agree with this. As long as by values precede morals you don't mean values inform morals, because morals seem to have a more social function and values are personal
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The key words in your statement are:
"Think"...Which is a subjective process.
Correct
"Wrong"...Which is a subjectively derived concept.
Not when it comes to the prime morals I discussed which is why nobody will find a contrary example.
"Fun"...Ditto.
Correct
Our interpretation of those objective morals can be very subjective. We agree
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Judging sources should be about the quality if the sources not number if sources to avoid free points by source spamming. A person with 1 source could theoretically have better sources than one with 20.
It could be the difference between 20 sources from buzzfeed or infowars vs 1 source of a video of the event being debated over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Values are morals the way I understand it. If you value not raping people, that would be a moral position, would it not?
I was taking it from the position of what you feel is right or wrong, which would come from that internal moral precept of "do not kill without a good reason".
I guess I will have to think about how to separate morals and values. My assumption is that morals are about right and wrong, while value may be something like "I value human life", but morals would be knowing it is wrong to kill without good cause. So values is basically what decides my actions, while morals is how I judge your actions. Just spit balling here
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So I guess my position is a bit more nuanced and I likely have a liberal defi ition of UBI. The fair tax has been widely studied and has a built in stipend I see as UBI like and it seems to work. Have not had a chance to look at your video yet but had it on my Playlist prior to seeing your post
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They do it by playing both sides. Usually it's conservatives who see themselves as moderates fucking Americans over along with all liberals.
They play the whole labor shortage game to drive down American wages.
Truck drivers make too much.
Please government pay for truck driver trai ING and lower the age to 18
Nurses make too much and news articles start popping up "we have a nursing shortage and need low IQ Haitians imported Stat to care for our most vulnerable people"
It's a shell game that is finally being interrupted a bit and they are freaking out about it.
Created:
Sorry for starting a new thread. I didn't realize this was up
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11801-the-case-for-objective-morality
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I would say interpretations are different. If you consider the interpretations of the prime morals, morals themselves than yes you could say they differ. I wouldn't say a subjective level of morality existing would erase the fact that objective morality exists though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yes everything the government does is perfect and good because they also give covid tests
Great logic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
There you have it. Morality is objective. I wrote this while sitting on a bus from memory of research I did 10 years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
I want to start by saying that objective morality is true. You can speculate as to whether that means a God does exist or if it is some sort of evolutionary thing. I don't care.
We need to start by defining what objective means. Objective just means that something is u iversally true for the most part. There is no place for stupid shit like pointing out a single exception. By single I mean a single person not a culture. We all share the same moral foundations. If I say that humans have 2 legs. We'll We know that some humans have one leg or 2, or even in some cases 3, but it is just a weakness of the human language and we know that nearly every human has 2 legs. So we say the statement that "humans have 2 legs" is objectively true.
Now that I have dealt with the exception criticism of people pointing out that perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer has different morals than me, I think we need to handle another objection to objective morality. Some would say that cats or dogs or alligators murder without a second thought, but this is where moral agency comes in. Animals are not on the same level of consciousness as humans. They are not moral agents. The only known moral agents are humans, so if we can prove that morality is objectively the same in humans (just as 2 legs are) than it can be said morality is objective.
prime morals
I want to talk about what I call prime morals. Humans share the same prime morals. We all think it is wrong to kill a child for fun. No society in the history of man would disagree. You will see some societies ask women to cover their head, others their ankles and some societies just ask that we don't expose our genitalia in public.
At first glance this may seem like different morals, but it in fact is not. We all intuitively have the same morals, they are just expressed and interpreted differently for different cultures.
For example the moral virtue known as modesty. All cultures have it. Some interpret it to mean covering a person's face and ankles, some interpret it to mean only cover genitalia and yet others take it to mean no having sex in front of children, but it is all an expression of the same morality.
The same with murder. The prime moral would be no murdering without a good reason. Now different cultures will interpret what "good reason" means but it is none the less the prime morality at play.
conclusion
we all have the same morals but they are merely expressed differently. There is a shared moral sense among humanity and since humans are the only moral agents it makes morality objective
Created:
It can work. In fact Republicans have a bill that would bring it in called the fair tax act and democrats keep voting against it and misrepresenting what it is. I wouldn't suggest passing it without strong controls on immigration though.
Created:
Posted in:
Did you know that rich people have more money for lobbyists to create laws than poor people and that regulatory agencies and fortune 500 boardrooms are basically revolving doors. And yet history buff knowing these people control the government want evil big business to have more power by expanding the powers of government. Dude is retarded or evil
Created:
Posted in:
so you make an assertion and when asked for proof you say it's my job to go out and poll rich people? That's not how this works. You are making an assertion. Provide supporting evidence or we can just assume you're making it up. Which I suspect you are.
I will give you a citation.
I know I know. You and everyone else in existence already knows this is true unless you are a complete retard, but you were hoping this phenomenon that we all know 100% for a fact exists has not been resear he'd so you can cope.
lol no. The rich love regulation cuts. It allows them to do whatever they want, like cutting wages or safety standards, using substandard or dangerous materials, dumping toxic byproducts etc. Regulations force them to behave in a way that doesn't harm the public good. They hate that.
This is a popular myth on the left but billionaires typically care more about market capture than profit. This is why they use regulatio s to keep out competitors. After the FDA was formed we went from 90% locally grown food to t food companies controlling 75% of the market. Right now open AI is begging congress to for regulation so it is impossible for some broke computer engineer to build up a rival company. Drugs take billions to come to market all because of regulation but you somehow think that big businesses hate that they have a monopoly on bringing drugs to market due to the high price of entry.
you have provided 0 supporting evidence for this and your "reasons" are super weak.
Well I gave you a citation in this post and I am actually wondering if you are a legit retard who has never interacted with a wealthy person or if you are just a liar, because we all, already knew my citation was true
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Give it another 10, 20 years and soon this will be a globe-spanning empire with a massive force garrisoned on America's doorstep. Would you rather America had to face down an invasion from this empire, or gave Ukraine some money to fight off Russia at stage one of Putin's attempted conquest?
I am trying to think of some sort of cost benefit analysis where this makes sense to them. Literally what would they benefit from doing that? Putin has all the money and whores he could ever dream of. It doesn't make sense from a security standpoint either.
I turn on CNN occasionally and the only argument that security analysts give because apparently this is the level of sophistication they operate at is thag Ukraine is Democratic. They don't even bring g up do mm into theory like you just mentioned or anything.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Exactly. Seal the border and it's none of our business. You know Russia would never attack the United States right? Militarily they would be crushed. There is nothing they can do. In fact even if they were more powerful. If we do not mean them any harm than there is zero incentive for them to attack us
Created:
Quick question. Why should we care if Russia is aggressive. Literally just nuke them if they come to our front door but nothing else matters from what I CAN SEE
Created:
Posted in:
If he doesn't come back in 48 hours I run the game and it is now caving incidents
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Original sin leads them to the new left-tribe religion these days. That is where they can be properly flagellated (verbally) for having racist and greedy ancestors (whether this can be confirmed or not doesn't matter). Then they get their absolution through the virtue signalling and tithes to reparations and the DNC.
I agree with this and I really do emphasize with those people and hope they can learn to appreciate the hard work their ancestors did to get them there. Hell even if the sacrifice was some deeply illegal or unethical thing, they should still take advantage instead if feeling guilt since no money can be obtained without some moral harm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence of your underlying position
Literally just ask the next wealthy people you see who have been wealthy for several generations. If you know 3 than the likelihood is that two will vote democrat.
would be willing to bet the vast majority of old money votes republican. You know, the party based on suppressing everyone but the rich and making the government just a tool to serve the interests of the rich.
See OP it explains the reasoning and how it benefits the left. For example how I pointed out leftists love regulation to keep out new comers so they can hoard wealth.
what? the old money, ie nobility, were almost entirely behind the right. ie the monarchy. there were some prominent nobles who supported reform, but most of them were in favor of the old guard, IE the republicans
It's no longer the 1700s and now old money prefers the left. For the reasons stated in the opening poat
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I thought Trump was old money?
Common misconception. Even in wealthy circles their is a social hierarchy and those who make their money from real estate or by owning car dealerships are frowned upon
Created:
Posted in:
This comes from studying history and looking at stuff like the French revolution and ancient Roman society where the evil wealthy old guard was a bit more open about their actions. Here are the following reasons I have discovered.
1. Status signaling
This is the most boring reason but still true, especially in Hollywood or for the children of people who have generated a lot of wealth but who never really had to work hard themselves. They often just follow what intellectual trends are in vogue. Lately it has been some truly retarded shit, and these same people often do not have a deep understanding of the philosophies they have adopted, merely because it is an accessory to them. Not too different than when they virtue signal by raising awareness for aids by wearing red bracelets. Not because they actually give a shit, but to feel morally superior to the plebs who are too busy with real jobs to pay much attention to such tragedies.
2. The wealthy elite have always wanted a slave class. In this day and age it is really cheap labor. God forbid they have to mow their own lawn or drive themselves somewhere, so they support Democrats so they can open the flood gates of cheap labor and own the modern equivalent of slaves or the closest approximate they can reasonably acquire.
3. This confuses some liberals but the old money actually likes regulations. If you have a person who owns a bunch of rental properties in New York, obviously they will be petitioning the state to create more regulations to prevent affordable housing in the form of high rise apartments to come in. It would decrease the amount of rents they can collect. This old money also often creates lots of regulations to keep new players from riaing up to compete. What do you need to be a painter. Just a paint brush a ladder and a pail of paint but no the liberal old money who has 3 painting crews and several construction companies does not like your competition so now it takes you having to register with the state, do continuing education credits for painting, they require you to be licensed and bonded etc., basically preventing a lot of people from going into business for themselves.
4. DeI
A lot of people also look at DEI and wonder why old money supports it. If they fill the tops of their companies with incompetent idiots, does it not hurt them? We all seem to suffer when companies hire based on some stupid criteria as opposed to being strictly merit based. Planes are literally starting to fall out of the sky as a result, but old money doesn't care. The thing they fear most is new money, so by putting thes jobs in the hands of incompetent fools it prevents some extremely talented fast risers from threatening their power.
4. After a lot of these slave rebellions and revolts by lower classes where the wealthy quite justifiably end up with their heads on pikes the wealthy began to realize that in order to pacify the sub human doors they would need to perhaps pool their money together in the form of taxes for welfare and other such pacifying vehicles. You can go look at articles up right now by these liberal elite which criticize both the left and right. Telling the left that a strong welfare state cannot exist without a strong capitalist state and that capitalism cannot survive as the poor will be upset if they have no safety net. So they are pretty open about their intent.
So you might at this point wonder what is the solution. I do know that, but it requires a further analysis of what identical attribute 90% of the left and the right have in common and why both are wrong, and why a 3rd position is superior to both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So while you may disagree with the assassin's judgement, if you accept the SC's interpretation of "the people" (which is the basis of our national position on guns that all the 2A advocates continue to celebrate) you can't claim their use of it is constitutionally out of bounds, and in fact if you are being consistent you would defend their right to make that choice regardless of whether you agree with it.
The people quite obviously means the people correct.
So let's take this a step further; if each individual is granted this inalienable right and the purpose of that right is to ensure the security of a free state, then it is up to each individual to determine for themselves whether that security is in danger and if so, nullify the threat
It's mostly supposed to be a threat. Don't be silly. You want a government that is slightly afraid of being lynched if they step out of line.
If we are talking security of a free state it would mostly refer to outside invaders. There are mechanisms in place for peaceful revolutions in the voting booth as long as elections remain fair.
If you look at Trump's latest would be assassin he quite literally was not motivated by any tyrannical fears. I read through all of his Twitter posts and he did have a book on Amazon I considered ordering, although it's probably too late for me to do so as Democrats are already trying to memory hole him as can be seen by the fact Facebook has already deleted his profile (something there is notaltruistic reason to do that ai can think of) . He was a weirdo who was against wars of aggression apparently but also had the following positions
1. Anti Biden for his foreign policy
2. Pro kamala harris who has the same policies
3. Anti Trump who is anti war
4. Pro ramaswamy phones Anti war
5. Pro Nikki Haley who is a war hawk like Biden and Harris.
This guy went to Ukraine to fight with the azov battalion and to recruit for the Ukranian military but judging by the posts of those in the Ukranian military was pretty much hated for being an undisciplined idiot.
This guy whose actions you seem to support didn't attempt to and almost succeed in killing Trump had it not been for prematurely placing the but of his rifle in the holes of the fence was probably motivated by Trump signaling he would end the war in Ukraine.
Me and you both know Trump would end it by calling in threats to Putin's life and then forcing both sides to make consessions they Don't want to make but this genius likely thinks he would do it by ending aid to the Ukraine. So no he didn't take actions because he thought Trump was Hitler but because he didn't want an end to the bloodshed in the Ukraine most likely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When Trump told Russia if they were listening to find the 30,000 emails that were missing, he was obviously joking.
Correct. Only a retard or a partisan hack would disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
AI needs to be monitored with a iron fucking fist.
This is why you just aren't going to make it when the robot overlords come. They will have access to your chat logs
Created:
Posted in:
Yogi Adityanath
This guy sounds awesome from your description
Created:
Posted in:
She seems about 20 IQ points higher than TWS though I do have a theory as to who it is
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Even the worst company would not create such a terrible liability for themselves. Your car fails to turn on that could turn into a lawsuit if you don't turn it back on when a judge says so. You make a pager that burns people's hands and possibly their house, now you're out millions. If they find out you made this possible intentionally decades in prison.
You underestimate people LOL. There are electric scooters in China right now for having the battery explode and kill people. While I do agree with your assessment of Israel's tactic with the pagers you overestimate engineers, particularly ones servicing shitholes like Lebanon
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
2hat about the media using out of context videos, should we cancel the first amendment and stop them as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The issue here is that AI democratizes lies to a certain extent. Legacy media can use fake footage and then lie and say it was always intended as stock footage or media can cut out parts of videos to take out context or lie with headlines, but AI gives normal citizens a way to make believable counter propaganda. This is why they oppose it. Notice how he doesn't sign into law that misleading headlines that say the opposite of the article are banned, just stuff that normal people can have fun with like AI. We will still have articles like "Did Donald Trump say we should exterminate Jews" with an article that gives quotes where he does not say that.
So this shit is just another way to stomp on the nits of the people and a clear violation of the 1st amendment and when it is challenged in court than the only response of the establishment will be to say it's misleading which means that it will either be shot down or upheld but liberals realizing g the new law applies to all deception will have to set up a 1984 style truth committee
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
lol of course elon objects. He was spreading an AI video of Kamala like a month ago. He desperately wants to use AI to slander people
Why do liberals lie? That was obviously parody and nobody for a second didn't think it was AI generated
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, your first assumption is right. In the real world engineers don't design in self-destructs and in the rare cases that they do they definitely do not make an API to remotely trigger them.
It's difficult to believe for me. Pagers are pretty low tech so probably but you have companies putting in some pretty evil kill switches. For example stole a bunch of John Deer tractors from Ukraine and they stopped working after they got them over the border, which means that engineers because I don't think it was hackers in this case, most likely made it so a kill switch could be activated on their tractors, which makes sense because John deer is attempting some pretty unethical subscription services not too different than copy machine companies trying to turn their businesses into subscription services.
Created: