Total posts: 1,340
my position is actually the liberal position. bill maher, a traditional liberal, agrees with me.
it's obvious watching the back and forth that most people are just brain dead reactionaries latching onto whatever their party is promoting at the time. if this was joe biden getting banned on twitter, these same liberals fighting to support twitter banning trump would then be saying we should promote free experession of ideas.
Created:
-->
@badger
there's nothing abusive or excessive about asking people to pay ten percent of their discretionary income for ten years if they borrowed enough to warrant it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
i dont see any way around what i posted. but sure feel free to think whatever you want.
Created:
the government should regulate tuition costs to keep them reasonable. and they should make sure student loans dont hurt people's credit reports.
Created:
they already have a bunch of different types of repayment plans. one of them is even ten percent of your discretionary income per year for no more than ten years.
they also have rules for those who are disabled to get discharged.
how is that unfair? there needs to be personal responsibility too.
why should workers who have no degree be paying for their boss who has a degree? plus all those arguments that it's unfair to those who try to pay themselves.
i actually dont like part of the above ten percent scheme, cause it could encourage students to take too much out, knowing it will get discharged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
even if he's deferring loans currently, that doesn't mean it's legal. do you have a source that it's legal? i would say the presumption is that he doesn't have the authority, cause presidents are suppose to enforce laws, not just do what they want.
the dreamer regulations might not be legal either. and, even if it is legal, that doesn't mean pausing loans is legal. the justification for the dreamer deportation pause is that it isn't cost effective.... that wouldn't apply to collecting money on loans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@coal
Can The President Cancel All Federal Student Loans?The President does not have the legal authority to forgive student loans on his own. Only Congress has the power of the purse. Executive action can be used only when it has been specifically authorized by Congress.The executive branch cannot spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, per 31 USC 1301 et seq (Antideficiency Act (P.L. 97-258)) and Article I, Section 7, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.The claims that the President has the authority to forgive student loans are based on a misreading of the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1082(a)(6). That section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides the U.S. Secretary of Education with the authority to:“...modify, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”But that quote is taken out of context. The preamble to that section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 limits this authority to operating within the scope of the statute:“In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may—"In other words, when Congress authorizes a loan forgiveness program, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness or the Total and Permanent Disability Discharge, the U.S. Secretary of Education has the authority to forgive student loans as authorized under the terms of these loan forgiveness programs.Without authorization by Congress of a specific loan forgiveness program, the President does not have the authority to forgive student loan debt. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., (531 USC 457, 2001), Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.”In addition, the “this part” language refers to Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which applies only to loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.There is similar language in Part E at 20 USC 1087hh for the Federal Perkins Loan program. There is no similar language for Part D for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program.The "parallel terms clause" in the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1087e(a)(1) (also, 20 USC 1087a(b)(2)) requires Direct Loan program loans to have the same terms and conditions as FFEL program loans. But this does not apply to the waiver authority because waiver authority is not part of the terms and conditions of the loans.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
aside from dangerous speech, what does it hurt everyone to have ideas freely passed around? im not saying it isn't the right of the company to make those calls, so you shouldn't keep harping on that point. it makes society better for ideas to be freely spread around, and stupid ideas should be countered by better ideas.
how can you claim to support free thought if you dont think it's an idea non-government should espouse too? clearly, you dont support free thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
what law gives him the authority to cancel student debt?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
so do you only agree with the private sector banning speech when it's something that you personally disagree with? you say that you support banning trump from social media, but i couldn't see you supporting it if barnes and noble decided to ban books by joe biden or i guess if social media banned biden. i happen to agree with you that trump's speech is bad and biden's isn't, but dont you at all support the idea of ideas spread freely even when it's something you disagree with? do you admit you only support banning speech you disagree with, and if you dont say that, how can you make that claim? trump had plenty of speech that was worth not censoring. maybe it makes the jobs harder for the mediums like social media, to have to pick and choose what's censored, but that's the price we have to pay for free expression.
Created:
Posted in:
i also doubt that biden has the authority to cancel all that debt
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
see my last post. you guys are guilty of the straw man fallacy. attacking arguments i didn't make.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"So like S1 said, the idea of government getting involved in any way is not protection, it’s a violation. You cannot protect one’s right to use a platform without violating the right of those who wish for their platform to not be used."
i'm not arguing that the government should get involved in the private sector to promote free speech. i agree with you that would be inappropriate. but i still maintain that if we support the government facilitating free speech, we should support non-government entities promoting free speech for the same or similar reasons. you can't claim to be a big free speech proponent, if you only care about it when the government is involved.
do you think it's virtuous for facebook to ban trump? even if i agreed he should be censored sometimes, that doesn't mean an outright ban. as has been said, the proper way to respond to stupid ideas, is with better ideas. not banning speech. if you feel the need to ban someone's ideas, you aren't afraid of just their ideas, you are afraid of free thought in general.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
which is why i said..
"if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech. "
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
the context of my post makes my meaning clear. you're too smart not to know that, so i'm not sure your motive. im thinking either just being funny or difficult.
Created:
here is my rant....
democrats will censor speech when it's dangerous or it's misinformation. republicans censor when it's simply a message that disagrees with them. examples are book bans from republicans, and social media censoring from democrats. the reason republicans are worse, is because they want to attack substance and dont have even a plasible (not that it's excused) excuse that the speech is dangerous or inaccurate. at least, republicans have historically not been all about new ideas. from the other side, the liberals' hippie ancestors are not amused, because those hippies promoted free speech, whereas modern liberals dont as much as they should. liberals also do things like ban trump from platforms.... it's understandable to block dangerous speech, but someone in trump's position should have least have a platform, so it'd be better to pick what things to block from him instead of a blanket ban. the reason liberals are doing the censoring moreso these days, is because they hold power politically these days in the culture... so it's an inversion of power, in the past they were the ones being censored.
if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech. my focus isn't debating those that think free speech is bad... but the thing is, everyone wants to talk out their mouth that it's good, and then a sizeable number will find ways to excuse censorship when it comes from their party.
i'm just calling spades, spades, with this post. how could you disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
a couple ideas. the verse quoting jesus doesn't say that jesus condones people using the sword. it's possible jesus came to stoke division, and it just so happens peeps will use violence, not that jesus thinks it's ok.
another idea. maybe jesus allows for self defense. self defense isn't necessary, such as jesus not fighting the crucifixion and when people turn the other cheek. but self defense is a person's right if they think it's the best course of action. jesus didn't say you have to turn the cheek, just that it's a good thing to do. (i think this is accurate, though i could be wrong)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
your profile pic, should say that putin is a genius. the words of your idol, donald the trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
would you support making criminals be slaves to the state, for the benefit of the victims? the slavery would be geared towards making money, to compensate the victims. if they chose not to be slaves, they could be executed. thoughts?
Created:
people are literally dying and telling us that they visited the afterlife. this happens over and over. and yet you guys are literally saying there's absolutely no evidence for the afterlife when it's plainly right in front of you. it's like arguing with elementary kids.
Created:
you guys also are ignoring that if they are accurately describing things when they are out of it, consistently... that'd be impossible unless they actually out of their bodies.
Created:
you guys are playing word games. the folks who have NDEs actually died. by standards of modern medicine. their brain and heart stopped. who's the one grasping at straws when you reject science to pursue an agenda?
Created:
"In a little over 40 percent of my surveys, NDE"rs observed things that were geographically far from their physical body, that were way outside of any possible physical central awareness. Typically, someone who has an NDE with an out-of-body experience comes back and reports what they saw and heard while floating around, it"s about 98 percent accurate in every way. For example, in one account someone who coded in the operating room had an out-of-body experience where their consciousness traveled to the hospital cafeteria where they saw and heard their family and others talking, completely unaware that they had coded. They were absolutely correct in what they saw."
Created:
u guys are missing the point. it might be possible to have an artificial out of body experience, but the thing that is being measured in all those science journals, is people accurately describing what happened out of their body when they are dead, on a consistent basis.
Created:
i was kinda rambling in the last post, but i think it's objectively circumstantial evidence what i posted. i think a reasonable person could hold an irrational view and say it's too subjective to call it evidence. evidence is evidence though, however you want to look at it. this is all splitting hairs too much for something so obvious as a matter of common sense.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
if out of body experiences are true, that's evidence the afterlife is true. if what i said about out of body experiences is true in my above post, that's evidence that out of body evidences, and therefore the afterlife.
in another debate i just had on this topic someone argued my points are too subjective. i guess i can't deny there are alternative ways to interpret what i posted. (other than the out of body info) so at the very least, it lacks common sense to argue there's no evidence for the afterlife. maybe my own subjective views are not strong enough for me to use an objective standard like 'irrational' here. that's plausible, but it's still extremely stupid not to think there's evidence of the afterlife after reading all that stuff i posted. i think it would be fair though to call it all circumstantial evidence at the very least, objectively.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
let me know when you're ready to actually debate something
Created:
i organized my thoughts from another thread, and thought i'd share it here. i'll probably take the debate to other debate websites too, to get a feel for a wide range of opinions. i have trouble logging in so i wont be able to respond as consistently as i'd like.
----------
dr. jeffrey long wrong a book, 'evidence of of the afterlife'. a smart and capable doctor writing a book like that should be sufficient to establish evidence, but i know some peeps are too stubborn to leave it at that.
let's look at some lines of evidence:
philosophically, it's just plain stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die. why would this even happen? drugs, dreams, and other hallucations dont cause people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories in any other aspect of life... why should we assume there's something special about dying that causes this?
out of body experiences are commonly verified as accurate, to the point of almost always being accurate. doctors and professionals are often some people verifying things that occurred when someone was dead, when what the dead person knew was impossible to know. if ya'll want a start in researching out of body experiences, 'evidence for the afterlife' by doctor jeffrey long does a short literature review of some highlights. there's lots of studies that look at the accuracy of those experiences and they're always shown to be accurate. there's whole scientific journals out there dedicated to this stuff, the evidence is basically too overwhelming to just ignore. even the AWARE study where they tried to measure out of body phenomenon, had two examples where someone who was dead knew what happened out of their body. and there was some measurement of auditory ability when they were dead. now, yes this isn't the level of evidence that leaves no room for doubt, and this isn't exactly being able to be measured in a lab on demand.... but this is all evidence that is being measured and can be repeated. it's basic science.
dead family members. when people experience beings on the other side, the beings met are almost always dead and almost always family members. if this was just a random hallucination, there should be many more examples of living people and people other than family members. this consistency is a strong point.
there are plenty of examples of blind people seeing when they die, often for the first time ever. the examples who people who are coming to grips with a new sense, it takes time to process and that's exactly what we see.
here is more on the NDEs of blind people
some other lines of evidence:
-another good piece of evidence is that when experiencers are surveyed, they say their 'life reviews' are always accurate, 100% of the time. if this was just a brain going hay wire, we'd expect lots of false memories.
-i think this also goes along with the idea that if this was a brain going hay wire, people would experience lots of random images, like a hallucination or dream. instead, they see lucid clear after life experiences that they have no doubt about and that are more real to them than their earthly lives.
-also, people often see images in their life review, that they've long forgotten. it's not as likely just a brain going hay wire if it's showing the whole life even the forgotten stuff.
-it's also good evidence that the same sorts of NDEs happen to people who have never heard of these experiences, and to children who are too young to know about it either.
-it's also good evidence, that across all cultures, the themes in the experiences happen the same. that is, tunnels, light being, life reviews and such... all these things happen at the same rate regardless of country or culture. i realize humans are similar, so the argument that we just have similar experiences is possible. but if this just a brain going hay wire, it wouldn't be so consistent and would be a lot more like random images or random experiences.
more on consistency.
-almost every person who has these experiences after the exerperience then believes in the afterlife. if these were just hallucaionations, you'd expect this not to so consistent.
-it's also worth noting, that a majority of atheists even come back believing in God... it's almost never the case that theists end up becoming atheists. the atheists who dont convert, just had no special insight on the matter, the ones who gain knowledge of something end up becoming believers. (this is also a line of evidence for the existence of God)
-it's very rare to find a non christian religion NDEs by the way. the experiences are so rare, that i challenge anyone to find just a few of them. the only ones i've seen are too open to interpretation to draw too many conclusions from.
the skeptic arguments against NDEs being authentic are at best hunches, it lacks specificity in science. there's no known afterlife gene or something in our brain that we know of that would cause this. yes, we are all similar so maybe our survial gene is facilitating all this. but like i said, it's all just a big hunch. we have lots of science and scant evidence to support skeptics. there's simply not enough evidence to be a skeptic about whether there is even evidence to begin with. this is all evidence, so skeptics have a repubuttable presumption against them and they are bad and providing actual evidence to support their claims.
philosophically, if it's common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, that's prime facie evidence that an afterlife might exist. even if i were to admit that an afterlife isn't most probable... it's objectively possible based on that evidence and all the other lines i've provided. that's why it's objectively irrational to say there's not even evidence for an afterlife.
Created:
i mean, it's good to subsidize alternative fuel, cause it speeds up the transition to those sources. but i hear things like how hydorgen engines are making lots of break throughs recently. what if hydrogen makes more sense technologically, but economically electric cars have the advantage due to excess subsidies? maybe the government should give blanket tax credits to alternative energy sources, and let the chips fall where they may.
note, this is a hybrid free market argument. i recognize that government intervention could be a good thing, but i still see how tinkering in the market could distort maximum economic/technological progress.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
what do you think of ukraine telling biden to stop escalating the situation?
what do you think when people say biden is sticking his nose into business that isn't his?
Created:
the media is good at telling us we should care about ukraine getting invaded, but they aren't good at telling us why.
what does biden do? he says he'll consider adding ukraine to NATO, and he is moving troops to NATO countries. these are needlessly escalating tensions.
what's the reason for such strong language? his actions are so untethered i can't quite pin point a reasonable motive. maybe it's as simple as ukraine being soverign is in the USAs best interests, and biden is just trying to act tough and is over reacting. id say a reasonable approach is to take what GDP ukraine is, and if russia invades, do twice as much GDP damage to russian GDP. that's tough without over reacting. give putin a choice. it's really not our business to be sticking our noses into otherwise. even the ukrainian president thinks the US president and media are over reacting.
Created:
Posted in:
i'm not sure you guys are aware, but biden gave warnings earlier in the year that people should be leaving so the usa could withdraw from afghanistan, and the people that stayed when things when to shit after the usa withdrew, had fair warning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
i could see your argument saying trump 'probably' committed a crime, but i'm not convinced it's beyond a reasonable doubt or more than a technicality. when he asked the dude for the exact number of votes he needed to win, it doesn't strike me more like he's trying to steal votes, it's that he's trying to win but he doesn't care how. the point being, if he genuinely thought he won the state, trump is just being trump in saying he doesnt care how he wins, but the fact remains he thinks he won. it would be a technical violation of law only. i know this argument probably sounds hokey, but i just can't get around how much trump seems to believe his own tripe, even his aids thought he was in a mentally disturbed state after the election such as how he was pacing around repeating to himself that he won. i can say maybe your argument is right, but trump is a disturbed individual so i dont know
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
maybe earth would be better without reefs, but that's not the point. the point is that humans are clearly causing them to die. ya'll have been trying to argue that's not true. but you guys are not capable of logical argumentation, so it's probably not worth my time trying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
i do think it would be reasonable for a jury to find him guilty based on what you've argued, but i could also see thinking trump is sincere in his election ideas
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
i agree that it's possible to infer from someone's actions that he actually did intend a mens rea even if you cant read their mind. i just dont think you have presented good enough arguments to make the case in this situation. i think trump lives in a fantasy world, perhaps you could compare it to being delusional where he believes his own tripe.
Created:
Posted in:
if trump was sincere, then he didn't violate what you yourself quoted... "A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct."
Created:
Posted in:
usually what happens is liberals spout that trump has committed all these crimes, but if you notice, rarely can they back up what they are saying with specifics.
often they're too subjective. things like inciting a riot, or campaign finance violations.
or they're too hawkish instead of common sense. such as trump merely giving the benefit of the doubt of what his properties are worth for different reasons, such as taxes versus getting loans.
there are some technical laws he may have violated, but they are not serious. such as lying about how big his properties are. it would be reasonable to disagree o this example and think it's a serious violation.
so, what are your examples of trump breaking the law in a serious way... and can you back it up with specific facts and laws?
Created: