dylancatlow

I’m not saying these shooting deaths don’t matter. But would you change your stance on abortion, or free speech, or gay marriage if not doing so would result in the execution of 1000 innocent people? If so, you could become the exact opposite of what you are now with only a few thousand deaths. Is that not a scary thought for you? 

The left’s loathing for guns and their owners is over more than just concern for the occasional mass shooting. There aren’t many liberals even willing to own a gun, despite viewing themselves as highly moral people; and those who do own one usually are not thrilled about sharing their “dirty secret”. Gun ownership just doesn’t work for them. That’s because the typical modern leftist has submitted to the elite’s “morality for the masses” of weakness = good, strength = bad, expressed in virtually every aspect of their thinking, which automatically makes one who feels entitled to arm themselves under this regime an “antisocial brute”.

As for the idea that an assault weapons ban would not constitute an infringement on someone’s right to own a gun since they’re able to shoot faster than guns of the past, this argument would also apply to every other modern gun including handguns. The argument would “prove too much”, and does imply an “infringement” under any reasonable interpretation of the English language (look up the definitions of the words used if you’re really not sure). And if it really is so obvious the framers can’t have meant to include the more powerful firearms of the future in this right (which is nuts - if they were alive today, do you honestly think they would be siding with liberals on any issue whatever?) and only did so here by accident, thankfully the constitution also tells us exactly how this can be addressed. If you just want to ignore it, then you’re not for the constitution at all. The whole point of it is that you have to listen to it even when you wouldn’t otherwise want to. It fully accommodates for this burden by making it possible for those whom it constrains to change what it says. Preserving a working constitution is a more noble effort than efforts at saving the lives of .0001 percent of the country. 

I agree that some of the republican talking points that come up after every mass shooting are bad, but they don’t even need them. They have enough as it is. 

It's a priori plausible that democrats stole the election (right now Biden's electoral lead hinges on 60k votes out of 160M), but I still haven't seen any great concrete evidence of it. 

If you break down the swings by county, Trump lost way more ground in White, non-urban areas. He actually IMPROVED in Philadelphia county. 

1. Biden's gains over Hillary were largest in red-leaning states like GA, AZ and TX where democrats weren't expecting to need a win , and which only became relevant because democrats did worse than expected in the Midwest. Given Trump's razor thin margins there in 2016 , it would've been pretty hard to hold on to them with even a slight shift toward democrats, which we see even in red states where election rigging would presumably be harder for democrats to pull off. If Democrats were going to engineer a win for Biden, you'd expect them to guarantee wins in the Midwest rather than barely push him over the edge and then "seal the deal" with narrow wins in GA and AZ. 

2.  Exit polling is consistent with the national vote count being 51 percent Biden, 48 percent Trump.

3. Republicans appear to have held on to the senate, which democrats were favored to take, and also came miraculously close to taking the House. Why not rig those too? 

Widespread voter fraud was plausibly decisive in such a close election even absent any evidence, but I haven't come across anything convincing. Lots of nonsense is being shared on social media about how Wisconsin voter turnout was 5.5 standard deviation higher than its historical norm, which doesn't stand up to even 5 seconds of scrutiny. Trump supporters are being super lazy about this, which just lowers the chances that instances of real voter fraud will come to light. 

"Unlike traditional property, intellectual property is "indivisible", since an unlimited number of people can "consume" an intellectual good without it being depleted."

This has to do with one of the justifications for enforcing of property rights, which is irrelevant to your claim that intellectual property is a meaningless concept. 

I would argue that there are at least two justification for having property rights, one of which you identified and another which I would call "the right to sell one's intellectual labor." Although illegally downloading someone's song doesn't deprive them of the ability to listen to that song, it does take away their ability to sell the music they produce. We as a society have simply decided that people should be able to sell their intellectual labor, just as they can sell their physical labor. There is nothing arbitrary about this.

To say that something is "property" is to say that no one else but the owner can have or use it unless the owner decides they can. But this is necessarily a legal concept, because even in the case of physical property like a chair, anyone can acquire the chair by stealing it. Nothing within the chair itself says that it belongs to the owner. That's a societal decision, which makes the whole notion of property abstract. To say that a physical object is "property" is really to say that we as a society will *treat* it as "property". And clearly, things like songs and movies can be treated as property. All that's missing in the case of intellectual property is one of the justifications for property, namely that because taking away property from its owner deprives them of the ability to use it, it shouldn't be allowed. But it also deprives them of the ability to sell it, just like in the case of abstract ideas such as songs and movies. 

Probably the most hyperbolic I've said about him is that he's "our only hope," which can be true even if he's terrible. 

It's not my fault that your praise of Elizabeth was laughably hyperbolic, and almost necessarily wrong. 

"Dylan Catlow is posting a series of lies that I am genuinely going to only respond to by letting others reading this know that he lies directly, not even slanting truth. What he is typing against Warren is actually lies, she doesn't dodge the questions he says she's dodging and he actually said she aligns with the Democratic voter base the most... So therefore, she's the right candidate to vote for as a Democrat... That is simple logic. It's curious why Dylan would defend candidates that lie about their stances just to garner votes."

If you want to maintain that Elizabeth Warren is always perfectly direct in every one of her answers, then please defend her performance in this interview. When asked why she identified as Native American, she apologized for failing to draw a distinction between Native American and "tribal citizen," which is nonsense, because identifying as Native American does not necessarily imply that one belongs to a Native tribe. She never explained why she thought her teeny, tiny bit of Native American ancestry qualifies her as Native American. 

Again, her answer is not relevant to the question. It's possible that her intention was to get ahead, but that such tactics turned out to be unnecessary. And even if it wasn't the intention, a fair-minded person would recognize that by identifying as Native American they could be stealing a spot meant for a real Native American within the racial quota system we have. 

Oh, well if we're talking about GDP capita, I don't think there's any guarantee or even that it's likely that China will ever surpass the US. I think the absolute best it could hope for would be to perform as well as Hong Kong, and as it stands now Hong Kong is slightly poorer than the US. Things may change as the US gets progressively "more diverse," but I just doubt that China is going to catch up before the world goes boom. 

Neither do white Americans. 

"There is genuinely no American prominent politician other than her who will fully answer all questions you hit her with, straight up, no fucking around. She literally answers them, doesn't dodge EVER."

The sane version of this statement is that Warren happens to align more closely with her base on certain economic issues than just about all the other candidates, and so is far less constricted in the kinds of responses she can give. If you want to see a great example of Elizabeth in "politician" mode, listen to her response when asked by an audience member why she put down her race as Native American. It's clear that Elizabeth is willing to evade questions when no satisfactory answer is possible, just like any politician. I don't even see the need to call her out for it. 

"The children are usually improperly fed so their brains, even if they had the genes to become Einstein or Tesla, don't actually properly lead to genius brain development."

Perhaps that's why semi-starving Chinese farmers outperform both blacks AND whites in the US on IQ tests. 

Congratulations, you've identified one possible explanation for racial disparities in the US, and one that just happens to align with certain widespread cultural values which our society enforces practically at the point of a gun. Now the task is to make your theory falsifiable so that it qualifies as "scientific" and can be accepted or rejected on more than just an emotional basis. 

The answer depends on how one wants to think of economic supremacy. If by this one means "which country has the largest GDP," then China has already surpassed the US, at least in terms of real GDP. But that's not a very useful measure, since not all economic activity is globally relevant. A country that is still at a stage of economic development where most citizens are primarily concerned with being able to afford basic necessities may nevertheless have a large GDP if it also happens to be highly populated. But if the majority of citizens are barely scrapping by, it doesn't really matter to the rest of the world how wealthy the country as a whole is. Such a country may as well be located on a different planet, unless it decided to use its large GDP to apply military pressure. 

It's very likely that China will eventually surpass the US in terms of nominal GDP as well, but I think the more important question is: "Will it be an economic center on par with the US?" There too, I believe the answer will hinge on one's intereptation, since I think the US will continue to outproduce China in terms of e.g., Nobel Laureates, for at least the next 50-100 years.

According to the way most people define those terms, I am both a racist and a white supremacist. I personally choose to them in such a way that they don't apply to me, but it's a little BS, because they apply to virtually no one in that case. 

I do think that the white race is "better" than the other races, but that doesn't mean that every white person is better than every non-white person. That's not even close to being true. 

I didn't say it was. That's why I put "morally degenerate" in quotes. 

It is a common trope that gay men are more prone than other demographics to engage in frequent casual sex, which accurately reflects my own experience. This, I think, can be explained simply by the fact that for a gay man, the only barrier to having sex is another man's willingness to have sex with him, and since males are by far the sluttier of the two genders, this amounts to a very low barrier indeed. Thus, it's not the case that straight men aren't slutty, but rather that in most cases they are kept from being as slutty as they want to be due to the shortage of loose women willing to have a one-night stand.

Notice that gay males are the only ones who are both attracted to men (the sluttier and therefore easier-to-sleep-with gender) and male themselves (and therefore slutty themselves). 

The intention of this post isn't to promote homophobia, but rather to offer an alternative explanation to the one typically used to explain gay promiscuity, namely one appealing to the "moral degeneracy" of gay culture and gays themselves. 

1. Many of those crossing the border do so in groups that include small children, babies, and other "dependents" who wouldn't be able to scale a wall themselves. Getting them over a 30 foot high-wall with barbed wire at the top would be risky and difficult, and it would make repeated crossings a nightmare. 

2. If the wall was installed with motion detectors every few hundred feet or so, the wall would have to be scaled very quickly in order to avoid capture by police. Depending on how high the wall was, this may be next to impossible. 

Of course, no wall we build will ever be 100 percent effective at preventing illegal immigration, but it doesn't have to be perfect to prevent or discourage large numbers of would-be immigrants from entering the country. These are not trained wall-climbers we're dealing with, but scared and impoverished peasants who in many cases aren't even sure they want to leave home. 

Well, which policy ideas you consider harmful largely depends on where you stand politically. If you're in favor of restrictions on hate speech, chances are you lean left, in which case you're probably also in favor of e.g., abortion rights. 

"Presumably, advocating on behalf of any harmful policy idea is harmful to society"

If we're justified in placing restrictions on "hate speech" because of its potential to harm others in society, then why stop there? There is plenty of speech with the potential to harm society. Presumably, advocating on behalf of any harmful policy idea is harmful to society, and shutting down such advocacy would help society reach better outcomes. 

I agree that ultimately everyone should be treated as individuals. Pretending that an intelligent black person isn't intelligent because he's black isn't just racist, it's insane. 

But your response doesn't really address my question, so I'll ask it again: "How do we determine whether there is more genetic variance within races than between them, and if it is the case, what does that establish?" I claim that nothing actually hinges on this question. Given the high amount of genetic variability within every race, the races can still be "very different" even if they do not differ to the same extent as any two people from a given race. 

This is not actually the case, at least with respect to IQ. If you take two White people at random, they will on average differ by 15 IQ points, which is the same amount of difference between the White and African American means, and half the amount of difference between the White and Black African means, and one third of the difference between the Jewish and Black African means. 

In any case, even if it were true that greater variation existed within races than between them, what exactly would that establish? Nothing really. The races could still be very different, given the high degree of genetic variation within all races. Nothing magical happens once it's established that genetic variation within races > genetic variation between races. 

I was under the impression that Missouri was an open carry state. In an open carry state, this is what you're allowed to do: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2016-07-17/Getty/576771626.jpg&w=1484

I am bigoted right-wing nut job, proudly. 

Yes. Any governmental policy that is based on the assumption of racial equality needs to be changed unless it just happens to be "right by accident" (which is rarely the case). Race Realism's implications are most obvious in areas like immigration and Affirmative Action, but it has much to say in regard to other issues as well. Basically all the "progress" we've made since 1950 is not really progress at all, but a bunch of liberal gobbledygook, and should be reversed.  

Brain size, level of testosterone, how long it takes to reach puberty, etc. 

"Why do you like Noam Chomsky?"

In the political realm, I consider him to be little more than an eloquent "repackager" of standard Leftist doctrine, with some irrelevant anarchist rhetoric on the side. To the extent that I like him at all, it's because he's extremely articulate and knowledgeable, and because of his willingness to answer any email I send him despite his insanely busy schedule.   

For sure. My belief in the CTMU has only grown stronger over time. This is not the right place to explain what the CTMU says and why it qualifies as Absolute Truth (if I were to do that, the explanation would be given its own thread), but for now I will just say that the CTMU is what results when you take seriously the idea that reality is a self-contained system in every sense of the word. Believe it or not, the mere fact of reality being self-contained is enough to tell us the answers to virtually all major philosophical questions. 

I am here to answer your questions. 

"Now, we've got to make the additional decision of whether rape is as bad as murder, or less bad.  It's obviously less bad than murder.  A raped victim still is alive, despite whatever post-occurrence trauma they may experience.  But, a person who has been successfully murdered is, as the term implies, quite dead.  So, murder is worse than rape."

Thank you for saying this. It had to be said. 

Here's how Wikipedia defines White Nationalism:

"White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity."

Obviously, it's possible to maintain a white national identity without every last citizen being white. Israel, for example, seeks to maintain a Jewish identity despite its large and growing Arab population. 

Warren is just grandmaster demon Hillary's second form. I'm still waiting to see her third and final form already. 

He never said to send them back, let alone that all minorities should return to their homelands. But even if he had, that would not prove that his own brand of White Nationalism is the only kind possible. 

Oh. Well, White Nationalism isn't necessarily about establishing an all-White country. 

Can you rephrase that? 

His next thread: "Problems in El Paso!"

Traffic problems, that is. 

My thoughts exactly. 

In her latest display of stupidity, AOC has lashed out against senator Mitch McConnell for having the support of seven "very evil boys," whose sinister nature became apparent when they encountered a silly cardboard cutout of AOC and decided to express their negative opinion of her by pointing their thumbs in a downward direction. Two of them got a little "too creative" in how they expressed themselves, with one of them pretending to choke her and the other pretending to kiss her on the cheek in an ironic manner (some say he "groped" her as well, but if so, he missed her breast by at least a foot). 

For those who insist on describing their behavior as "disturbing," I'd like to know what you think is the proper etiquette concerning displays of hatred toward political figures one despises. Are we really limited to such boring, unimaginative actions as pointing our thumbs down or sticking our tongues out, or are there other more "extreme" actions which are acceptable as well? 

If I spent an equal amount of time crying about every human tragedy, I wouldn't even have time to produce a single tear for these people. Now enough of your libtard shenanigans. These people don't matter as much as you'd like to pretend. A human life is not of infinite value, and the loss of a few dozen of them should not be enough to change anything at the national level. 

There's nothing wrong with being a White Nationalist. Did you know that all of our presidents and most of the American population was White Nationalist up until a few generations ago? This was even true at the time we went to war against the Nazis (so much for being Nazis). 

Founding Fathers to each other:

"Hey guys, do you think future generations will know to repeal this amendment if they ever manage to invent planes and one of them crashes?"

"Of course! It's only the second one, after all." 

This is why it's important to learn at least some math, so you don't end up wasting half your life being terrified about threats which are mostly imaginary.

If you add up allllllllll the deaths from allllllll the shootings, it comes to like one plane crash. Not even the worst plane crash, just a pretty bad one. And because of that "plane crash," we're supposed to have a "national conversation" about repealing the Second Amendment and fighting back against White Terrorism. Give me a break. You're only able to get away with it because we live on Planet of the Sheep. In a rational world, you'd be looked at as a total fool. Maybe even a madman ;) 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/08/06/the-dayton-shooter-was-proantifa-n2551264

Here you go, CNN boy. 

Neither of your sources rebut the claim being made, which is that these men were "left-leaners" who perpetuated "mass-spread non-state-sanctioned-miltary violence."