fauxlaw

You throw wiki at me as evidence of something? To me, who considers Wiki as it says of itself? Well, did you look at your source's world map of countries affected by inflation and that in 2019? The lowest, with other nations, in the world? USA. While socialist countries are at the worst. Hmmmm.....  It's your source, bud. 

There's a bold statement without a shred of evidence offered. Offer it,. demonstrating that it somehow limits the money supply.

Feudalism was an economic system based upon land ownership, in which land owners severely limited the profit potential of serfs. Further, feudalism ceased being an economic system in the 15th century. Therefore, it is not a relevant comparison by either point.  https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/feudalism.html

So, you'd rather vote for a Joe Biden who says he will beat Joe Biden? For a Joe Biden who declares his pleasure of children sitting in his lap and rubbing his hairy legs in a pool? For a Joe Biden whose hands on shoulders of girls and women to support his erect stature while sniffing their hair? A Joe Biden who declares on tape that "the son of a bitch was fired" after threat of withholding $1B from Ukraine? A Joe Biden who faces his stage left, and walks off stage, during a basement chat? A Joe Biden who confuses his wife with his sister? A Joe Biden who, left without a tele-prompt, can't string two words together? Yes, I guess you would.

That's what I thought you'd say. You're wrong on at least two counts, regardless of your new planet scenario. First, between you and your employer, even if the latter is you, with FICA taxes [God in Heaven, what is that?] you pay 80 to 90%, or more of your own SS and Medicare, by what your employer considers as income to you. So does the government. You just don't see it because it's in that quadrant of your paystub you don't consider income, but it is. The rich. Yeah, right. They pay for theirs, too. The reason why the government is in danger of the well going dry is that they can't keep their filthy hands off that source of money for them to spend on their over-indulgent programs that consist of stuff like added benefits you think are entitled. Bullshyte.

Second, you're under some kind of impression, because Oba'a told you so, but he's wrong, too, that "there comes a time when you have made enough money," because, what he didn't tell you is that he thinks there's a finite ceiling of the money supply. If just half the poor were ambitious instead of lazy, and maybe that describes you, too, made a plan to put their money to work for them, instead of expecting entitlements from the government, they'd be rich, too. That's how it's done. Don't just work for money; put your money to work for you. But, some people are just not that ambitious. There is no ceiling to the money supply. That's the beauty of the free-market system; it has no ceiling unless idiots like Oba'a convince you there is. And, sorry to say, but it's true; you're an idiot for believing him. I say that with kindness because this is so easy, I'm shocked you don't get it. You've been sold a bill of goods that aren't. Your teachers are idiots, too. Why complain about the rich? Be rich.

Redistribution? It's my money. I made it. I am ambitious, planned how to make it, and executed my plan. It's what my father taught me. It works, but, so must you. It wan't black magic. It was ambition, planning, and execution. Who can't do that? Idiots who don't get it, and think they're owed a life, that's who. Wake up! You are responsible for you; no one else. Redistribution. What a wish balloon.

The current mode is requesting a mod to remove it, or to allow an edit of a vote, the latter being a situation I'm in eright now, though have not yet made the request. That works during the active voting period. I don't think a member should be able to delete or edit on one's own.

Who do you think pays for the high majority, and, in some cases, the total of that safety net?

Oh, but there is nothing but freedom. The problem on the left is arguing for limitations, which they are free to do; they are their limitations, self-imposed, beginning with "I can't."

As long as people on the left claim to advocate a whole society of different people, as stated in your #2, I will refute the claim by one example: the people on the left who advocate a green new deal of net-zero emissions ignore that they also advocate windmills in any yard but their own, thus are in denial of their net-zero claim because a windmill in anyone's yard will still emit GHGs because they all use petroleum as lubricant and for the fabrication of plastic parts, as do the turbines of every other green energy source. They goose themselves going and coming. It is the same with every other progressive line of thought. A basket of distinctions without a difference.

I still maintain, quantum wampum, or not, compaction and rarefaction of air particles do exhibit the phenomenon of "noise."

Gee, Bro, if the heat is intolerable, no one insists you stay in the kitchen, even if mastering boiled water is asking too much

Am I obligated, but by point of law, to justify anything to anyone?

I agree, fruits and vegetables have mighty good taste, which is the whole purpose of your invitation to me to join you in a vegetarian meal that, to quote you, "will knock your socks off." That is accomplished by taste, yeah? I rest my taste case as justification. To me.

Lining me and family up at a slaughter house would not change my opinion of a preference for an omnivorous diet. It may kill us, but isn't that murder? Flagrantly condescending argument.

Should any argument in which a difference of opinion relative to what one eats  work in anyone's favor but the eater? Hell, I won't eat "anything." Milk chocolate, for example, is intolerable. To me.

"Society" is no guarantor of morality. There are as many moralities as there are climates. Which of the latter is "ideal," such as the Green New Deal should seek to have it emulated worldwide [even if such were possible]? Therefore, only by agreement of international law [and not all countries subscribe to I.L.] can we dictate the behavior of cannibalism, let alone morality for or against it. I'm being entirely pragmatic about this, even though I personally oppose cannibalism. I can choose to avoid those regions of the world thought to be inhabited by cannibals, however, it is greater risk to be in regions where, even where cannibalism does not exist, I may still be where I am not at the top of the food chain. I have been in such circumstances, and I was by choice.

I concur. Degeneration accomplishes nothing. I agree to stop conversing on this subject. We agree to disagree.

Re: #2, let my vote be no.

1. Yes

2. I am for allowing mods to vote on meeps in all cases, but the wording of the question and responses offered do not offer that option. You have given three options of variations to ban mods from voting, which I am against, or opposition to the refinement, which would be against allowing mods to vote. Why introduce a ban in answers, but not in the question? The presence of "ban" reversed the intent of the first three answers not implied in the question.

3. Yes1

4. Yes, but knowing that polling must have: 1. MoE [margin of error], 2. a sufficient number of respondents to give poll credibility [I can provide a formula], 3. properly worded questions that do not impose bias [no poll with an agenda, such as in question #2 of this "poll."], 4. A limit of 10 questions [most polls exceed this number, and respondents become bored with the poll and will answer anything to be done with the poll, thus invalidated the results of the. poll. No exceptions.

5 Yes4

I, too, see your growth. Well done in such a short time. Be relentless.

You are very kind, but the site ranks me lower. I've never debated Ragnar, but reading some of his debates, I think your rating is good. I've debated Bla, and I agree with your assessment. I've also debated Oromagi and he trounced me in a debate I thought was a winner, but he smoked me for the worst of reasons: outplayed my word play. Yeah, IU think you've ranked him right as well. Our current debate is a good one; I'm really enjoying it. Never debated whiteflame, but reading his debates is a good exercise, as well. I look forward to the opportunity.

Last point of the first § is a loser. No emptiness. Therefore, all the 2nd § is the emptiness, but not mine. My emptiness left and was left behind on the realization that I have no limits but those I impose. I don't. See my last debate with K_Michael, https://www.debateart.com/debates/2042/i-can-t-isn-t-necessarily-a-defeatist-attitude, for which absolutely no one voted. Cowards.

An AI? Really? Is that coming out soon after AlGoreGooeyJuice?

Yeah. And just as your argument that Barr is trying to show his best face, if that's what it was, the media, which happens to favor these protests, is typically going to avoid showing the darker side of protest. Trying to show the best face, yeah? Face it; everybody does it, and it usually does not reflect the total reality. Grow up.

Here's my view of most college professors, having experienced just a few: In the original 1984 Ghostbusters beginning, the Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray characters are lamenting the loss of their grant to study the paranormal. Murray is nonchalant, but Aykroyd says, "I've been in the private sector. They expect results." The ivory tower typically does not.

If you have to ask, you're not even understanding what it means to prematurely efactulate. Figure it out.

thanks for your response. I really value your input, particularly. I agree that incentivizing voting might draw a larger sample, as I suggested by rating/ELO. What do you think of my DRV proposal?

That was the biggest dump of malarkey. If a protest does not accomplish anything, just what is a valid reason for it? Because you can? Sorry, that's an ethical faux pas

Sourcing: if you cannot prove the reporting, why do you still insist it was Barr who lied? Yu have two options. You bias is driving your decision. Is it always right?

Why do you insist on demanding that I prove your point. My point is that I was not there. Get it?

I didn't give the contradictory sources. You did. You find them. I don't do your homework. I'm not your tutor.

Yeah. After one has berated Trump for so long, they go blind. Not a good result for wishful thinking, but, that's what pound-me-too is all about: wishing.

So, I guess I'm your partner. We're taking fascism? Oh boy. Well, neither one is my cup of tea. I'm a confirmed free-market capitalist, with absolutely no interest in oppressive governments on either side of the aisle, but I do relish taking a position with which I completely disagree. Keeps me honest. So, what now?

Worse, I think we areseeing a pattern that protests actually have negative consequences, let alone not being a vehicle for improvement.

I will note that all three of my ties were debates with no votes. I think I'd rather lose than tie again for lack of a vote.

The irrationality of your proposal is assuming God is compelled to act on either His Omniscience, or His Omnipotence, to affect our free will. And, as Ethang noted, it is still our choice, hopefully knowing that one choice will align with God's will, and others will not. That decision does not need to be left to chance, and, therefore, no probability is really at play, but only if we are in tune with what is God's will. Obedience to Him is not limiting our free agency. Rather it expands it.

Every time we make a bad decision, there are limitations that are directly related to the severity of the bad result that are imposed on us. Any limitation restricts our ability to make free choices. The more bad than good decisions made, the more restrictions we impose on ourselves until we ave become slave to bad decisions. The opposite is true for making good decisions; our free will expands.

I am officially [?] lobbying for a change in debate policy to wit: Regardless of a countdown schedule [established by the instigator],  a completed debate that ends in a tie with no votes ought to have a vote extension. I further suggest that moderators do all they can [more than just "bumping for votes," whatever that really means] to encourage voting.  There is just no reason why debates should end this way, I don't care how inane or unpopular a debate subject is. As members, we should have more respect for one another. This is a community, not a scattering of individuals. Is this how DDO began it's decline? By indifference?

I suggest we develop a collection of members who take the positive step of commitment / volunteering to vote, and upon whom moderators can appeal to rescue any debate in danger of, or have ended without a vote, and allow an extension to the debate by a schedule agreeable to such volunteers. I understand personal schedules sometime prevent a few volunteers from participating in this rescue vote at any given time, but if a collection of debate rescue voters [DRVs?] is sufficiently large, this should overcome that issue. I nominate myself as a DRV, or whatever we would call it, and encourage others to voice an opinion.

Do DRVs earn rating points when they volunteer to rescue a doomed debate? I don't know, but it might be sufficient motivation to volunteer.

How valid are protests if they accomplish nothing? - and most do not.

Are we still responsible for the sources we cite even when the say something we do not personally espouse, or should a better source be sought that has demonstrated credibility?

When the media reports two [or more] separate versions of events, are we justified in picking one of them over the other because it agrees with our pre-conceived notion of reality?

YOU FIRST cited claims that Barr lied, and that he did not. I'm not going to do your homework for you to figure that out, bud.

Since the use of TG & PS are LEGAL, IU suppose that means people ought to be peaceful in their protests. That they were, or not, is not mine to establish, but since you raise the issue in the first place that Bill Barr WAS LYING, LOOKS TO BE YOURS TO SOLVE. I have no dog in the hunt.

No sense in playing this game  of who said what. Botytom line, there are better ways to protest and Greyparrot offered a very good one: Get educated, be responsible, work to solve social issues. If you think that is not a mode of protest, yo don't yet understand what public protest can be. If you're limited to shouting slogans in the street [which just repeat what's on the signs, 'so why doesn't every body just shut up and keep walking, holding their lame signs?

Their head of household.

My family. And me. Period.

As my increase increases, I increase my charitable percentage. And I research my charities. I know them. Often, personally. I have chosen as part of my charity to help a family in need directly, and not through a charity. The personal association is gratifying for both parties. Along with the money, I give time to educate in gaining skills. Like teaching a man to fish, yeah? I am in favor of ending the need for charity by the gain of self-sufficiency.

Yes, to each their own morality. Leave it at that, too.

If some other species wants to eat e, so be it. I have been where I am no longer at the top of the food chain, in a Thai jungle with nothing of protection other than a good blade at my hip, and my wits. Sobering. But survivable. Until you have been at risk of your life by another species, you don't know what risk is.

Taste doesn't justify? In my republic, it does. Sorry about yours. Yes, other places do have a variety of food sources. I've tried them in over 30 countries, including insects. Don't knock if you haven't tried it. Besides,  since rice paddies emit methane, as do all natural and cultivated wetlands, plus lakes, rivers, and oceans, and at a greater volume than cow farts, let's just leave it at this: you can have your rice, but leave my steak alone.

Yeah. Me. I'm responsible for me. No one else, other than my family. You be responsible for you, etc.  That said, I contribute 20% of my increase to charity,  but I choose to whom and for what. No one else need try to put their hand in my pocket, and never mine elsewhere. Fair enough?

I did not imply that you're offered by my vote. I imply you are offended by Trump. That is your privilege. I am not suffering by Trump's presidency; I am profiting by it. That is my privilege.

I'll be entertained.

You certainly have the right to be offended by Trump. What are you able to do about it? Vote against him. Meanwhile, your offense cannot censure others. You can try, but the time spent is wasted because others choose to disagree with you are not able to engage emotional detachment from reality. Be offended. Milk it.

I have incisors and canine teeth, both of which are essential in tearing flesh, as with all omnivore and carnivorous animals.

I like the taste of meat. Do I need any other justification?

Morality? Is that a joke?

By following Greyparrot's social media example in his post #295. Rather than go into the streets to protest [that can be done, but does anything ever really change without doing as he noted?] Get an education and then contribute our knowledge to the improvement of society. Look, do you know what most of the anti-establishment youth of the protest era of the 60s did? The became educated and joined the establishment, that's what. Or, they dropped out, tuned out, and turned on, and they've been that way ever since. That's no progress. Things have improved since then, and its not been by mindless drivel protest in the streets; it's by educated progress by application of education, and not by counter-culture theory by protest in the streets.

Spot on. What these clowns don't get, but I'm sure the Founders did, was that what you suggest is the more productive kind of protest: whether things can be improved, or not [and when can they not be improved?], I will improve myself, and then improve society by my positive contribution. Now that's protest with a real purpose, and motivation to go do something about it than into the streets to LOL, or whatever frightened little girls do.

Did I say that? No. I merely acknowledged that it is not illegal. I see two arguments you sourced. One says it was used; one says it wasn't. YOU are believng one source over the other. I'd like to know why.

I was not there, and I do not automatically trust the media to tell a straight story.

Yes, but there are conditions affecting severity of injury, such as preexisting asthma, respiration disorders, etc. Maybe people suffering these conditions should think twice about what they get involved with, yeah? 

Your reasoning, as well, assuming the crowd was not unruly. Refer to above regarding the media.

Leave when things do get out of hand. Personal responsibility; yeah?

Faulty logic. Please tell me how you prove a negative. Nope, won't happen.

Refer to above. I was not there. I don't trust media. Period. I cannot speak for your carte blanche trust

LOL. You use this a lot. You do know, don't you, it means "frightened little girl."

No kidding. You think maybe that's not a good idea? What happened to protest. Like I said: frightened little girls.

LOL becomes useless with so much use.

Is gathering in a crowd the only way to protest? Mindless drivel. Uncreative lot, these protesters, and, well, if the shoe fits... so too their supporters who stay home. Like someone in this conversation???

thx I'll look it up. I wasn't here, then

Stats indicate blacks commit more crimes, and general against themselves, than any other racial group. But one incident in 1,000 is hardly a systemic problem. Get serious. If the injuries to death ratio is 10:1, it is still not a systemic problem; 10 in 1,000, or 1%. Actually, the injury ration is less than that; 5 in 1,000, or 0.5%. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388955/  That is definitively not a system problem. Stop the wild accusations and look at the numbers.

Are tear gas and pepper spray illegal to use by law enforcement? No. Why do they use these agents? To disperse unruly crowds quickly. Are T.G and P.S effects more injurious with longer exposure? Yes. If peaceful protests remain peaceful, and the crowd gathered does not inhibit pedestrian and vehicle traffic with their protest, will police who gather just in case the crowd gets unruly use T.G. and P.S. on the crowd anyway? Probably no, there is no reason to do so. But crowds easily take on a life of their own and bad apples among them will get unruly, endangering those whose intent always was a peaceful protest. The short answer: If the protest is likely to gather a large crowd, best to avoid attending. Second best is to leave if crowd gets unruly, because T.G and P.S. are more likely to be deployed. If it is, leave immediately to avoid longer exposure and more serious harm. Or did you think those who attend events that may get unruly have no responsibility of their own?

I am intrigued that not a single response has yet noted either by rebuttal or support that it is progressives who are rattling the sabres of systemic change of police forces. Why is it that only progressives want fundamental [i.e. constitutional] change in America as advocated by Barack Obama in 2004 in his keynote address at the DNC, four years before his Presidential campaign, and two years before his Senate campaign? Destabilizing the Constitution is progress? Since when and by what logic? Progressivism is retrograde, at best.