n8nrgim

raising the minimum wage is moderate. enforcing labor laws is more practical, which is a moderate virtue. party values evolve so every 20 years u gotta reconsider what r the party values

i think this was promoted by a small group of moderate republicans. the kind of republicans that most other republicans call RINOs. 

an interesting idea i heard once on here from an atheist, is that most philophiscial evidences for God could be said not to be so much as 'evidence' for God as soemthing that is 'consistent' with the God theory. 

i think it's compelling when i hear someone say they hear God's voice and soemthing that looks like a miracle occurs. something that looks impossible, like a damaged retina of a blind person that suddenly heals itself. lots of miraculous looking healings.  you dont see that sorta thing coming from atheists. ive been told that maybe i'm seeking confirmation bias, and that may be, which means it's implied things that looks miraculous might happen to athests too and we just dont know it. it's possible that this point is just something that is 'consistent' with God,and not evidence for God, but it lacks common sense, the common touch. 

If you study near death experiences, the evidence is strong that these are authentic experiences. search this forum to see my threads on evidence for the afterlife. atheists usually become theissts after an NDE, it's almost never the case that theists become athesits and those atheists who didn't convert just had no revelation about God, yea or nay. it's idiotic to say there's no evidence for the afterlife, and these experences with God are compelling. this is the strongest evidence for God that i can think of and i think this is more than just something that might be consistent with a God theory. it's possible to say it's just consistent with the God theory, but it's a weak argument. 

are we really just elaborate flesh robots floating around in a meaningless reality? that sometimes people die and experiences elaborate afterlife stories? that sorta thinking lacks common sense. 

atheism is idiotic. 

i'm curious how people, especially his supporters, would respond to this. 

chrisitans are called to evangelize. like st francis said, peach the gospel, use words if necessary. they should focus on outreach, doing good, being good examples, involvement in church, and to some extent, that is healthy, they should involve themselves in politics. it's not usually christian values to be hermits or reclusive. 

"All we really have, is now"

"Dear McGuyver,Enclosed is a straw, a paperclip, and a rubberband. Please save my dog."

"ever dance with the devil under the pale moonlight? i always ask that of all my prey"

"to be great is to be misunderstood"

"i think, therefore i am"

"where ever you go, there you are"

“To be is to do”—Socrates“To do is to be”—Jean-Paul Sartre“Do be do be do”—Frank Sinatra

it is what it is

just sayin

whatever is whatever

"i dont know about all that"

by reading this, you have just given me brief control of your mind..

"Every choice is a renunciation."

"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.. that way, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.." 

just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you..

"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin."-Darwin

"Reality continues to ruin my life."-calvin, calvin and hobbes

"Time you enjoy wasting, is not wasted time." -John Lennon

"There is no blue without yellow and without orange." - Vincent Van Gogh

"Color is overrated. In restricting a piece to black, white, and the grades in between, an artist misses the meat of human emotion, suffering, and conflict. There are no virginal hues hinting love at twilight; no pastel dabs softening winter’s steely blow, no warming rays of dawn. Just two non-colors stating exactly what the creator intends: a raw, revealing look at the human condition."

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uninevtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by istlef but the wrod as a wlohe.

to error is human. to forgive... divine.

"fortune favors the brave"

Be the change that you wish to see in the world.

"i always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that. then i realized, i was somebody"

"life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?"-martin luther king

we can easily forgive children for being afraid of the dark, but the true tragedy is when grown men become afraid of the light ~Plato

To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.

A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving. -Lao Tzu

a man remains wise as long as he seeks wisdom. the minute he thinks he's found it, he becomes a fool. -talmud

"What is Truth?" -Pilate

seek first the kingdom of God.

"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" -Romans 8

God has a plan

chuck norris doesn't sleep... he waits

so do you agree that the real issue is 'proximate v general' causation? you argue that trump in some detached sense caused the riot therefore he should be responsible for it. should the policeman that murdered george floyd also be responsbible for all the riots that happened afterwards? you have to draw a line some where. the rioters did their own thing. if trump isn't gonna be found liable for insurrection i dont see why you'd be happy making responsble for a rebellion. it's the same idea. if the government doesn't think he's guilty of the first thing, they shouldn't do a bunch of gymnastics to make him guilty of the second. that's what you're doing you're doing a bunch of gymnastics and loop de loops. i mean, you're super smart and usually right on most issues, but it's pretty clear on this issue you are too covered in bias, to think objectively. 

you're doing what everyone has been telling you that you've been doing most of this thread, and deflecting instead of engaging in debate. if everyone else sees it but you, you might want to ask yourself if its not really you that's the crazy person. 

How is it that a reasonable person can't read the word rebellion in the constitution and conclude trump rebelled? Reasonable people don't have to agree with originalism like we do. You r just being dogmatic and insisting an artificial standard of absolute truth. 

"strawman fallacies"

if you notice, at a place like a debate website, you see 'fallacy' thrown around way too much. you guys just have a different philsophical approach. to characterize the others as fallacies is probably more itself fallacious. i prefer using the word fallacy on questions that are more fact based. i suppose you could characterize this situation as factual v not, but i think it's too open to interpretation for that. i'd say he's not committing a fallacy, he's just making really weak arguments. 

then it boils down to originalism v living constitution. it's fair for you to think that we have a 'living constitution', and that 'rebellion' should apply generally to trump. if tws is right, and we were to use originalism, and his definition is right... then trump didn't cause an armed rebellion. again, it depends on if you think he should be responsible for that or not. i see that you keep going down the rabbit hole of defining various 'arms' ideas, but if trump isn't reponsible, then the point is moot. if you just take a vague idea that trump was a general cause of the rebellion, in an abstract sense, then it's getting into territory that isn't fair. to use a legal jargon, trump isn't the 'proximate cause'. it would be slimey word play to say trump is the proximate cause. 

but yeah, it all boils down to originalism or not, and the proximate cause debate. i still think it is you that is stetching things beyond fair understandings. and i like to use originalism, unless the original purpose of the text is no longer applicable in special circumstances. 

-----

sherrod brown and gretchen whitmer, ohio congressman and michigan governor. these guys dont have a lot of name noteriety and haven't gotten into enough policy specifics to know for sure that they're the best, but from what i see i like em. republicans, chris christie, though i guess i think he's not currently elected to anything. 

i havent read all the exchange between you two, but it looks like you hold trump responsible for the armed rebellion against congress. trump wasn't charged with insurrection or riotings or anything related to initiating an armed rebellion cause most or a lot of people including me, which includes those in authority, dont think trump was responsible for the attack. so if trump isn't responsible for armed rebellion, and the unarmed rebellion that i thought could disqualify trump doesn't fit the definition... the trump shouldn't be disqualified. between all of us arguing, it boils down to whether trump is responsible for initiating the attack on congress and we all simply disagree. TWS provided the right definition it looks like, but he's sucking at making good arguments to defend himself. 

that's a great point if it's true. sounds like you r right that trump shouldn't be disqualified. 

if the situation is as your legal argument presents, then of course trump shouldn't be disqualified. but are you sure that your definition of rebellion is the same as it was during the time the constitution was written? the definition you present makes armed rebellion part of what 'rebellion' means. obviously, just reading words as they are, that might not be how the people who wrote it intended. 

The 14th amendment bars those who insurrection or rebels against the constitution. I don't buy the argument that he committed insurrection but he did try to overturn a legit election. Should that count as rebellion?

i'm sorry for your loss. i dont know if it helps or hurts, but like the orthodox, i think we all experience God's love on the other side. we might not all like everything God's love does to us, but we experience it fully, like a father reuniting with a son. 

the smallest known measurement is plank's length. i dont know if that's the smallest that can be measured, or the smallest possible, but even if it's the smallest measurable, we can't know if it's possible to get smaller. 

it's true. we have a bloated military and healthcare sector so we cant afford the same social services other countries have. if you look at how much we spend compared to other countries, we have less taxes and social services, but if you look at overall spending, it's about the same as other countries.... our private sector healthcare if it were directed by the government, would put our overall taxes in line with other countries. our military is bigger than the next ten countries' militaries combined. our healthcare spending per capita is twice what other countreis spend. we have a lot of waste and excess in this country. 

what if the universe was infinite? there could be infinite planets and stars, or there could be a limited number and infinite space. 

but that doesn't necessarily imply infinite possibilities, does it? we might assume that if there's infinite space and a whole lot of matter, that there must be infinite possibilities, but that is a big assumption. in an infinite possibility universe, i would be in better shape and get lots of models as girlfriends in some of those possibilities or alternate universe. but if there's limited possibilities in an infinite universe, then that assumption is false. 

what say you? 

if there are any regulations that limit emissions that poor people cause, that's bad for them. 

"Picking random answers here puts me at the bottom 22.82%. So it's not giving random results, but it is scoring people higher than it should."

if you pick a random number, you have a 25% chance of guessing correctly given there's four choices. how are you so sure that the bottom 22 percent of people should get better than 25% of the answers right? is the assumption that even dumb people should be able to do better than random picks? that might be a fair assumption, but i dunno. 

Increase in prices from regulation mostly affects the poor

you say it affects the wealthy. what about the poor? if there's limits on who can drive gas cars, that affects poor people the most. if there's limits at all, it can affect poor people who can't use fossil fuels. 

i'm not saying we should do nothing, but it needs to be well crafted policies. 

we should double down on alt energy, and maybe figure out how to reduce existing or prevent future carbon with technology, but i suppose i'm skeptical about limits on emissions. i dont know what the right policy would be, so that it doesn't affect poor people. 

excellent points

i acknowledge as everyone should, that climate change is man made and making the globe too warm. just look at the coral reefs. they've been thriving for millions of years, but suddenly in the industrial era, it's become too hot for them. they probably would have adapted if it wasn't for man's sudden shocking input.  plus the overwhelming consensus of scientists on global warming is significant. 

but what is the solution to this? cutting back on carbon and using alt energy. i acknowledge using alt energy is good, but to the extent that we're cutting back on emissions, what's the consequences? dampened economic activity, and on the margins people can't survive. of course with climate change, there's droughts and unstable weather patterns. but which is worse?

as of now, we're not doing all we can to stop climate change, so the cure doesn't seem so bad. but what if we did do what it takes to lessen climate change significantly? it could be a disaster, couldn't it... where the cure is worse than the disease? 

climate change is a disaster, but i think we ultimately will be able to adapt. 

to offer a contrary position, i think we should have a lot less moderation. at least from where i sit, any activity is good activity. it's amusing and stimulates discussion. the only thing that should be banned is anything that could be viewed as illegal. for example, excessive harassment and threats of harm would be illegal. 

rich men north of richmond. it's not that catchy, but it struck a nerve with the working class. the dude turned down millions to sign a music contract. he's topping the charts, even beating some of taylor swift's new songs. he rails against welfare lolz

the usa isn't divided well enough geographically for a civil war. even family and friends dont agree with each other that much sometimes.

it'd be more like civil unrest and anarchy

i think the country isn't as bad as pundits would have you believe. the average person is very immature politicallly so they latch onto stereotypes and undeveloped ideas, but most of the country is okay with how things are, we're no where close to getting people ready to give up their security to fight a war 

who needs experts anyway? we dont need no education, we don't need no thought control 

won't you come back bro T? we need the comic relief 

King must have been ignorant and or stupid 

do blacks get discriminated against for being black? sometimes. do white? not as much. given whites dont face the same level of discrimination, it's fair to say they have white privilege. it's not rocket science. 

i mean you didn't really give a deeper meaning as to why we suffer to begin with. your answer is for us to evolve, but why is it such that we're put into that situation to begin with?

is your main beef with what i said that i think we probably agree to a life that includes suffering? i did say maybe not all of us do that. and if evolving is a necessary part of our existence why would it be so far fetched to think maybe the ones who have to suffer in that process didn't volunteer to be part of that process? 

my impression is that you believe in the afterlife right? what is your view of why we suffer, or the purpose of suffering? if your view is that suffering is to inform us to avoid said suffering, why is it such that there is suffering to begin with? 

We know all the gods you mention r fictional. If we accept reality, that's a fact. We have reasons to believe a more generic God is true, and we have reasons to believe Jesus is true. So it's fair to think those ideas r true. To the extent that we lack lnowledge, virtue as Co creators can be found in faith. 

I know u r going through a doubting phase, but u also need to stay dedicated to truth

I think that's probably true, we knew what we would experience. We r part of God and eternal and that's what many nde experiencers say so it makes sense. If it's not true that we all came here knowingly then I think at least many of us did

God might be more about valuing experience and growing through strife. for most people, they can become good people if they struggle with overcoming their faults and overcoming the faults of others. for those on the margin who suffer, humans can some day use technoology to co create a solution to their problem.  i pointed out that Jesus said it will glorify God when the suffering is no more in the afterlife. i know that sounds like a cop out, but what if there is a purpose to suffering? that's a great answer to how to find glory in suffering, if it's possble to find that glory, then this is it. again, i understand if you thought i was rationalizing and coping out, but i'm trying to be an optimist. plus when people who die and come back tell us of the afterlife, they say things like we choose our experience and that we can grow and learn from any experience we have, even the negative. and, finally, like i said, if God's focus is on 'experience', then even if the experince is bad, it's still experience. life and hte universe for humans is about discovery and growth. we can find that even in the worst negatives that are out there. 

it's like glass half full v glass half empty. i choose to find purpose in everything, and see the glass half full. you can choose to say life's a bitch and the glass is half empty, i just choose not to accept that as reality. NDEs and the afterlife expereinces are on my side on this too, as well as a viable or possible way of looking at it, so it's not like i'm just blindly choosing to focus on the good just because i'm not a realist. you have compelling arguemnts that you are more the realist, i just think it's mistaken, and to the extent that i have a choice in my view or reality, i choose to think the glass if half full 

supply and demand will still be in effect. the less colleges focus on nurses, the higher nurses will be paid. so more students will pick that. it will all balance out. the more bankers are focused on, the less profitable they will be and less people will choose it. the most talented people will make the most money, which is justice as it should be. it will balance out. 

plus choosing majors will still be a basic choice of what someone wants to do for a living. people choose to be social workers now because they want to, i'm sure they still will want to. some people want to  be nurses, so they will pick that. the colleges will still find it profitable to teach nurses and social workers. maybe some colleges will focus on investment bankers, but there will always be someone out there willing to make profit at teaching nurses etc, and even teaching philosophy majors. 

i did point out that we can require some humanities classes be taught. it will be taught efficiently though, instead of incentivizing colleges to just drag college out with excessive classes because we are writing them blank checks. 

we dont write blank checks to high schools, because the local government regulates the whole thing. what you are proposing is letting the private sector ask whatever the maximum is that they can ask, and then expect the government to pay it. percent of income plans puts a cap on all that.  if a nurse can't afford 100k student loans, why do you think it's okay for the government to pay it? the person who is at the center of all this should pay what they are able, and with my system, by definition, they can afford it

if we didn't do my percent of income plan, i would be okay with paying tuition directly from the government, if prices were regulated. the whole world does it to some extent with healthcare, and the most sucessful countries do it a lot with healthcare, so i wouldn't mind if we did that with tuition. it sounds too complicated though, so i'd prefer just making everyone pay a percent of income. 

nothing the government does is perfect, everything they do will need modified, that's just the nature of the beast. so if people are trying to get around paying a percent of their income, then the other monetary rewards they get will need to be taxed somehow.

you can't just write blank checks to the private sector and not expect costs to sky rocket. it's throwing gas on fire. that's what would happen if you just write checks to colleges for tuition. 

why do you assume my version would mess up the job market? just because colleges are focusing on profitable majors doesn't mean less profitable majors wouldn't be funded. if someone is willing to go to school and pay their starbucks wages for a philosphy degree, then there will be a college who will take them up on that offer.  it's money in exchange for a liberal arts education that basically costs nothing. maybe the school will focus on philophy majors who would likely be smart enough to get a high paying job despite picking a non profitable major.... i imagine though there would always be a college willing to take tens of thousand in exchange for teaching lesser able students the art of philosphy. 

we shoujldn't pretend that the point of college isnt to make money, and the point of colleges as businesses isnt to make money... we're just acknowledging that and making the bottom line the main focus. but again, it's not the only focus, so i think you are jumping to conclusiosn because you dont want to admit what a stupid idea you have to just write blank checks to colleges.

again, like our other thread about mens rea and trump with you clearly distorting everything in that article from a prosecutor... this is just another example of showing someone how they have stupid ideas, and the person is too stubborn to accept it 

why did you just ignore all my great counter points to your awful idea and just double down on said awful idea? 

here's some of my ideas if you wanna debate them.

what do ya'll think?

of course this is just a generalization, as there's lots of exceptions. 

i've heard some say democrats have no ideas and republicans have bad ideas. 

what are ya'll's thoughts on all this? 

instead of looking for a loop hole to 'the ends doesn't justify the means', why not just scrap the ends means argument altogether? obviously we shouldn't do whatever we want to achieve good ends, but there is the concept of 'proportionalism', which says as long as the means are proportional to the ends, they are moral. i know there's less moral clarity when it comes to the details, but the moral framework is more workable. i can't find any hypotheticals that trip up the whole paradigm when it comes to proportionalism. 

we are God, we are also the universe discovering itself. we are part of creation. when people go to the other side, they will wonder why they let people starve to death and didn't do more to make progress for our species and the planet. 

People who experience the afterlife also tell us that thus life is like a dream and fleeting. I know it's hard to be of consolation when we r suffering, but it's still consoling if this life is but a dream

I know u r being tongue in cheek, but the proper analogy wouldn't be God hitting us, but rather God letting us be hit

Do u view God as unable or willing to fix bad stuff? Do u think he has evil motives? Do u view him as George Carlin said of God, a lazy incompetent father figure who doesn't give a fuck?

I view God as unwilling and to some extent unable but unlike atheists i say it'sfor a good purpose. It's in our best interest to experience what we do.