Jealousy is a sin and to resent one's only sister's success doubly so. Further, Tahini was born to wealth and beauty so her generosity of spirit was seldom tested. Plus, Tahini was an exhausting braggart. Chidi dedicated his life to self-improvement and the improvement of his fellow man. If his deeper understanding of the uncertainties that underpin all of our self-justifications paralyzed him- well, it is pitiable but I also feel much sympathy.
Thx for invite but my hundredth debate is promised to whiteflame and I'm just holding out for some improvement in my time and temperament before I take that on.
I do love The Good Place. Obama gave it a shout out last month. Least malevolent is a terrifically high standard in a hierarchy that includes Doug and Janet and Gwendolyn and Chidi.
Well, a tribe of stone-age muppets pulled it off so.....yeah. Bounty hunters routinely storm fortresses and prisons and kill everybody inside in twenty minutes so....yeah. You can trick their capital ships into crashing into one another by simply flying in between them sometimes. They're so bad that Jar Jar Binks is a general in their world. Their best guy is a clinically depressed quadruple amputee with a terrible rash. My Little Pony could defeat a Star Wars army. A steady breeze could defeat a Star Wars army.
I thought YEC was more specifically that Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago- that the Earth is young. I suppose many YEC also think the Earth was created in 6 days but you can be a YEC without being a literalist, I think.
Now "homosexuality is not oral" is a more debatable subject, if we assume the instigator is misspelling his conditional. Since Clinton argued that oral did not count as sex, I think the affirmative enjoys some precedent.
The contender's burden of proof is no more provable than "heterosexuality is moral." The opposite of "homosexuality is not moral" is not "homosexuality is moral" but rather "homosexuality is not immoral." No one would argue that straight people have achieved a moral state merely for being straight so why would you force the contender to show that gay people are moral, inherently? If you change the contender's BoP to "homosexuality is not immoral" I'd be more interested in this debate.
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
The pilgrims sailed the sea
To find a place to call their own.
In their ship Mayflower,
They hoped to find a better home.
They finally knocked
On Plymouth Rock
And someone said, "We're there."
It may not look like home
But at this point I don't care.
Oh, they were missing Mother England,
They swore their loyalty until the very end.
Anything you say, King,
It's OK, King,
You know it's kinda scary on your own.
Gonna build a new land
The way we planned.
Could you help us run it till it's grown?
They planted corn, you know
They built their houses one by one,
And bit by bit they worked
Until the colonies were done.
They looked around,
Yeah, up and down,
And someone said, "Hurray!"
If the king could only see us now
He would be proud of us today.
They knew that now they'd run their own land,
But George the Third still vowed
He'd rule them till the end.
Anything I say, do it my way now.
Anything I say, do it my way.
Don't you get to feeling independent
'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.
He taxed their property,
He didn't give them any choice,
And back in England,
He didn't give them any voice.
(That's called taxation without representation,
And it's not fair!)
But when the Colonies complained
The king said: "I don't care!"
He even has the nerve
To tax our cup of tea.
To put it kindly, King,
We really don't agree.
Gonna show you how we feel.
We're gonna dump this tea
And turn this harbor into
The biggest cup of tea in history!
They wanted no more Mother England.
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings...
We're gonna elect a president! (No more kings)
He's gonna do what the people want! (No more kings)
We're gonna run things our way! (No more kings)
Nobody's gonna tell us what to do!
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
Looks like it's going to be a free country.
I agree with you that your submission is fair use under Federal copyright law. In fact, I'd say just about any copy & paste on this site would be arguably academic or scholarly and certainly not for profit and so likely to be fair use. I'd like to see us hold ourselves to a higher standard, linking to anything that we borrow and I'll readily admit I am as forgetful and lazy as any in pursuit of that standard.
I agree that mediabiasfactcheck.com is subjective and unscientific, its the fact that mediabiasfactcheck.com is the only ready online bias analysis that doesn't come with a pre-packaged agenda from some corporate or polticial entity that I like.
As Howard Kurtz @ Fox News notes, "“If somebody invented what they thought was a brilliant tool to measure bias and he convinced a skeptic like me that it worked, I think in this polarized era, there [would] be a lot of public skepticism about who was behind it, who was making these judgments about when news organizations lean one way or another." Let's not kid ourselves that there's any bias analysis that the majority will perceive as unbiased- at least mediabiasfactcheck.com isn't getting paid to inject bias into the analysis. If you know a better tool, I'd love to see the link. Thx for friend request.
I'm actually a big fan Jefferson's Bible and Tolstoy's Gospel- essentially stripping the Bible down to Jesus's speech and collating. I don't know what kind of Bible Schafly will end up with once he removes all of Jesus' socialism and libtard criminal justice policies but I already know I hate it. There's a funny scene in the short-lived sci-fi TV show "Firefly" where this girl genius is trying to rectify all the internal contradictions in the Bible and we see her ripping out whole chunks at a time.
RM is correct that adding arguments to any debate (yours or somebody else's) is always bad form since it has the effect of violating the characters per argument limit and voters sometimes forget whether they saw the argument within the bounds of the debate or out of bounds in comments. You are correct that this is only fellow courtesy and not an actual rule.
I have no objection to keeping your comments posted as long as we acknowledge that these points are cut and pasted from Conservapedia, which source retains all the vulnerabilities of Wikipedia without any of the documentation or, you know, facts.
You should always credit and cite other people's work on any part of this site.
mediabiasfactcheck.com rates Conservapedia "as Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as outright false information. This is not a credible source on any level or by any known criteria." Conservapedia is the project of Andrew Schafly, son of the famous Phyllis.
Here, for example, is a cut & paste from Conservapedia's article on BARACK OBAMA, " In early January 2017, Obama empowered holdovers in his administration to stage a coup against the Trump transition team and the incoming Trump administration. Barack Obama is the first American president since the transition of James Buchanan to Abraham Lincoln who refused a peaceful transfer of power to his elected successor. According to Joe Biden, who served for more than four decades in the nation's capital, there were no clean, bright, and articulate Blacks prior to Barack Obama."
mediabiasfactcheck.com also warns that Conservapedia sometimes borders on hate speech.
Conservapedia is currently working on a project to remove all the liberal bias from the Bible including liberal heresies such as "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" and Christ's final words on the cross.
There's a certain level of fact checking beyond which nobody's perfect but all fellow sources generally agree because the facts have been checked. Wikipedia is uniquely vulnerable to irresponsible updates but that source is also unattached to any other corporate interest which can't be said for many other sources. For Breaking News, I generally don't trust a story until APNews runs it. They are vigorous about corrections and they tend to break news more cautiously then any other source.
My first year teacher was French and terrible- Mme Choquette
My second year teacher was American and wonderful- Ms Taylor- she taught us how to order wine and cuss in French, she made us read french poetry and cook French food. Magnifique!
2 years of high school French and google translate go a long way. I like to say I'm just literate enough en Francais to read de Sant Exupery's Le Petit Prince
Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.
Waaaahh! Don't try to interpret my meaning using English, all meaning that I am willing to acknowledge originates from me and is subject to reinterpretation at my whim. Waaaah! No opinion is based in fact. Mommy, ask me more questions! Because I says so, Mommy! Waaaah!
An outlook less useful to humanity's pursuit of knowledge will not be found.
It is like you are allergic to nouns because nouns makes sentences you might have to justify.
So, you are saying we know that there was nothing wrong with 9/11 because we can only know the harms of 9/11 by means of whatever 9/11 is. Meaninglesss.
why does your topic sentence lack a noun?
why do you never use dictionary definitions?
why do you never use sources?
why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?
White power " is an expression primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints. It is also a slogan used by the prominent post-Ku Klux Klan group Stormfront and a term used to make racist/racialist viewpoints more palatable to the general public who may associate historical abuses with the terms white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist."
So the expression should always be interpreted as intentional racism.
Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?
I've never liked LGBTQ. As an initialism it is overlong and clunky to say out loud. Inevitably, there will always be another set of folks who want addition to the string and feel excluded by the impossibility of representing such specificity. Besides, when one adds the Q, the queer to the initials you invoke an adjective that includes all the preceding sets and is therefore duplicative. It's like adding a C for condiment to the end of PBJ. Really, the only value of invoking LGBT is to specifically exclude other sets like interbreeders. If you really want to put all us perverts in a single-syllable, five letter, all-purpose box, then queer does very nicely. Queer takes on anybody willing to bear the label and the word gets little use anymore in other connotations by that virtue.
I think we've established that you're perfectly capable of writing a sentence clearly. Therefore, all the broken clauses and unparseable salads of non-agreement that are the hallmark of your offerings are probably tactical.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the topic is, the only engagement we'll see here is about how your foggy writing doesn't mean what anybody but you might interpret it to mean and you'll only ever want to talk about why we don't endorse your sloppy thesis, right?
I'm not sure that I buy that you endorse White Power so much as enjoy the use of words of maximal offense like a shiv to discomfit your fellows online. Cheers for that.
I have not looked into it yet but I am hearing tonight that the wonderdrug Trump's is currently promoting is similarly made from cloned stem cells of a baby aborted in 1973.
Since that advocacy makes Trump at least as complicit as Pepsi (Pepsi is motivated by business, Trump by self-interest) does that information diminish your appraisal of Trump or improve your tolerance of stem-cell derivatives?
, while the problem may be significant, it's not as big of a problem as the movement makes it out to be. In other words, my sense is that the movement represents an undue focus on the issue, plausibly caused by widespread emotional responses to stories of alleged incidents of police brutality.
I think that is the crux of the debatable point, right there. The personal experience of a smallish minority is at odds with national statistics. I am a gay man who is old enough to have experienced a fair amount of police brutality back when brutalizing gays was considered normal law and order across America. I live an old black neighborhood and have witnessed corrupt police brutality against my black friends and neighbors on many occasions. I have witnessed police shooting an unarmed black man for being startled when they woke him in his car. They emptied their guns, reloaded, emptied their gun, reloaded, emptied their guns again. A 14 year old girl in my neighborhood was shot 10 times by police because she had stolen a car and mixed up the brakes and accelerator. Three or four unarmed black men have ben shot by police in my neighborhood in my time living here and the neighbors report that it is much, much better than it used to be. One time, a cop drew his gun on me because he was digging through my trash can and I shone a flashlight on him thinking he was a hobo. So when BLM says stop killing us, I know first hand that they speak from a place of genuine fear and personal grief. I know what is like to be afraid of the police and I know that BLM is brave- the student standing alone before the tanks at Tiananmen.
I have also lived in rural farmlands and ultra white suburbs and so I know that my experience is not shared by large portions of America, who mostly get to see the "protect and serve" side of policing. I have also seen incredible acts of police kindness generosity and courage- sometimes by the same officers I've seen doing corrupt and racist shit. I understand why that majority is skeptical, having little analog experience with violence and only seeing the kind and generous service of police.
Both experiences are real and justified. For huge parts of the US, George Floyd is a blip, a non-representative experience. But in my neighborhood, Floyd's death becomes, "see? that's what I'm talking about. Maybe finally, white people will understand what's being done to us." Both experiences are real and justified.
th, Death I did follow the case as it unfolded and generally accept state and federal judgements on the matter. In my vote, I was looking for evidence that BLM persisted in false narratives regarding that case. As I said, I thought you established BLM self-delusion re: Brown shooting pretty well but then you just said "same thing with Trayvon Martin" although that case preceded BLM's existence and I don't know what their narrative is (beyond listing young Trayvon among the ranks of unarmed black men shot dead). I wanted more evidence there.
I consider you as a very good debater and I think you could craft a winning argument around your position here with a tighter set up (and no forfeit, naturally). Which is not to say I agree with that analysis of BLM's overall contribution.
I would say the false narratives argument is strongest. At the rallies I attended this summer, "hands up, don't shoot" was by far the most popular slogan even though the majority of witnesses and gun residue establish pretty definitively that Brown was reaching into the car when WIlson fired the first two rounds and the witness who reported Brown's hands up was shown to be unreliable. "hands up, don't shoot" was also the most popular response of the vandals and looters when police approached, although I am quite clear that I witnessed little overlap between those rioters and BLM. Nevertheless, BLM can't really back down on the narrative that made them famous or the slogan around which folks rallied this summer. Such false narratives are often at the heart of many a movement (Boston Massacre, for example) and doesn't have much impact on the net positive impact BLM has had on improving govt accountability and standards when it comes to shooting citizens.
I think you like her broad shoulders.
Jealousy is a sin and to resent one's only sister's success doubly so. Further, Tahini was born to wealth and beauty so her generosity of spirit was seldom tested. Plus, Tahini was an exhausting braggart. Chidi dedicated his life to self-improvement and the improvement of his fellow man. If his deeper understanding of the uncertainties that underpin all of our self-justifications paralyzed him- well, it is pitiable but I also feel much sympathy.
Thx for invite but my hundredth debate is promised to whiteflame and I'm just holding out for some improvement in my time and temperament before I take that on.
I do love The Good Place. Obama gave it a shout out last month. Least malevolent is a terrifically high standard in a hierarchy that includes Doug and Janet and Gwendolyn and Chidi.
Well, a tribe of stone-age muppets pulled it off so.....yeah. Bounty hunters routinely storm fortresses and prisons and kill everybody inside in twenty minutes so....yeah. You can trick their capital ships into crashing into one another by simply flying in between them sometimes. They're so bad that Jar Jar Binks is a general in their world. Their best guy is a clinically depressed quadruple amputee with a terrible rash. My Little Pony could defeat a Star Wars army. A steady breeze could defeat a Star Wars army.
I thought YEC was more specifically that Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago- that the Earth is young. I suppose many YEC also think the Earth was created in 6 days but you can be a YEC without being a literalist, I think.
proof that you don't need to be even a little bit right to win at debate
change it to my mind is obsolete and we might have a debate.
You have if you spelled oral with an M.
Now "homosexuality is not oral" is a more debatable subject, if we assume the instigator is misspelling his conditional. Since Clinton argued that oral did not count as sex, I think the affirmative enjoys some precedent.
The contender's burden of proof is no more provable than "heterosexuality is moral." The opposite of "homosexuality is not moral" is not "homosexuality is moral" but rather "homosexuality is not immoral." No one would argue that straight people have achieved a moral state merely for being straight so why would you force the contender to show that gay people are moral, inherently? If you change the contender's BoP to "homosexuality is not immoral" I'd be more interested in this debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBBTF0Wg7dY
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
The pilgrims sailed the sea
To find a place to call their own.
In their ship Mayflower,
They hoped to find a better home.
They finally knocked
On Plymouth Rock
And someone said, "We're there."
It may not look like home
But at this point I don't care.
Oh, they were missing Mother England,
They swore their loyalty until the very end.
Anything you say, King,
It's OK, King,
You know it's kinda scary on your own.
Gonna build a new land
The way we planned.
Could you help us run it till it's grown?
They planted corn, you know
They built their houses one by one,
And bit by bit they worked
Until the colonies were done.
They looked around,
Yeah, up and down,
And someone said, "Hurray!"
If the king could only see us now
He would be proud of us today.
They knew that now they'd run their own land,
But George the Third still vowed
He'd rule them till the end.
Anything I say, do it my way now.
Anything I say, do it my way.
Don't you get to feeling independent
'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.
He taxed their property,
He didn't give them any choice,
And back in England,
He didn't give them any voice.
(That's called taxation without representation,
And it's not fair!)
But when the Colonies complained
The king said: "I don't care!"
He even has the nerve
To tax our cup of tea.
To put it kindly, King,
We really don't agree.
Gonna show you how we feel.
We're gonna dump this tea
And turn this harbor into
The biggest cup of tea in history!
They wanted no more Mother England.
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings...
We're gonna elect a president! (No more kings)
He's gonna do what the people want! (No more kings)
We're gonna run things our way! (No more kings)
Nobody's gonna tell us what to do!
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
Looks like it's going to be a free country.
science, education, personal experience
Thanks for voting, fauxlaw!
Thanks for voting!
Congratulations, Fruit_Inspector! Well argued.
R3 SOURCES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-03-13/Scandal_fallout_continues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive25#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/trump-fox-and-friends-fact-check.html
My nickname IRL is a play on the word Wikipedia
Is it just me or is the quality of debate on this site taking off like a coronavirus? This looks awesome.
I agree with you that your submission is fair use under Federal copyright law. In fact, I'd say just about any copy & paste on this site would be arguably academic or scholarly and certainly not for profit and so likely to be fair use. I'd like to see us hold ourselves to a higher standard, linking to anything that we borrow and I'll readily admit I am as forgetful and lazy as any in pursuit of that standard.
I agree that mediabiasfactcheck.com is subjective and unscientific, its the fact that mediabiasfactcheck.com is the only ready online bias analysis that doesn't come with a pre-packaged agenda from some corporate or polticial entity that I like.
As Howard Kurtz @ Fox News notes, "“If somebody invented what they thought was a brilliant tool to measure bias and he convinced a skeptic like me that it worked, I think in this polarized era, there [would] be a lot of public skepticism about who was behind it, who was making these judgments about when news organizations lean one way or another." Let's not kid ourselves that there's any bias analysis that the majority will perceive as unbiased- at least mediabiasfactcheck.com isn't getting paid to inject bias into the analysis. If you know a better tool, I'd love to see the link. Thx for friend request.
I'm actually a big fan Jefferson's Bible and Tolstoy's Gospel- essentially stripping the Bible down to Jesus's speech and collating. I don't know what kind of Bible Schafly will end up with once he removes all of Jesus' socialism and libtard criminal justice policies but I already know I hate it. There's a funny scene in the short-lived sci-fi TV show "Firefly" where this girl genius is trying to rectify all the internal contradictions in the Bible and we see her ripping out whole chunks at a time.
Hi Wesley, welcome to the site!
RM is correct that adding arguments to any debate (yours or somebody else's) is always bad form since it has the effect of violating the characters per argument limit and voters sometimes forget whether they saw the argument within the bounds of the debate or out of bounds in comments. You are correct that this is only fellow courtesy and not an actual rule.
I have no objection to keeping your comments posted as long as we acknowledge that these points are cut and pasted from Conservapedia, which source retains all the vulnerabilities of Wikipedia without any of the documentation or, you know, facts.
You should always credit and cite other people's work on any part of this site.
mediabiasfactcheck.com rates Conservapedia "as Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as outright false information. This is not a credible source on any level or by any known criteria." Conservapedia is the project of Andrew Schafly, son of the famous Phyllis.
Here, for example, is a cut & paste from Conservapedia's article on BARACK OBAMA, " In early January 2017, Obama empowered holdovers in his administration to stage a coup against the Trump transition team and the incoming Trump administration. Barack Obama is the first American president since the transition of James Buchanan to Abraham Lincoln who refused a peaceful transfer of power to his elected successor. According to Joe Biden, who served for more than four decades in the nation's capital, there were no clean, bright, and articulate Blacks prior to Barack Obama."
mediabiasfactcheck.com also warns that Conservapedia sometimes borders on hate speech.
Conservapedia is currently working on a project to remove all the liberal bias from the Bible including liberal heresies such as "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" and Christ's final words on the cross.
bump 4 voters. Concession
There's a certain level of fact checking beyond which nobody's perfect but all fellow sources generally agree because the facts have been checked. Wikipedia is uniquely vulnerable to irresponsible updates but that source is also unattached to any other corporate interest which can't be said for many other sources. For Breaking News, I generally don't trust a story until APNews runs it. They are vigorous about corrections and they tend to break news more cautiously then any other source.
My first year teacher was French and terrible- Mme Choquette
My second year teacher was American and wonderful- Ms Taylor- she taught us how to order wine and cuss in French, she made us read french poetry and cook French food. Magnifique!
2 years of high school French and google translate go a long way. I like to say I'm just literate enough en Francais to read de Sant Exupery's Le Petit Prince
I should hope not
Thanks for voting, Intel!
Thanks 4 voting skittlez, I was missing those "poor conduct"s
I would enjoy taking CON on this arg.
I try to maintain a certain sense of humor in tone, although I don't think it's much good since its more often misinterpretted
You should read the source material more carefully. Please refrain from further arguments in the COMMENTS.
Here is the bottom line with this topic. You guys have to learn to always ask, always ask what a person means by any, any,any term that they use. Forget about the status quo or the conventional, social interpretation and your interpretation or assumption.
Waaaahh! Don't try to interpret my meaning using English, all meaning that I am willing to acknowledge originates from me and is subject to reinterpretation at my whim. Waaaah! No opinion is based in fact. Mommy, ask me more questions! Because I says so, Mommy! Waaaah!
An outlook less useful to humanity's pursuit of knowledge will not be found.
deliberate bunk
It is like you are allergic to nouns because nouns makes sentences you might have to justify.
So, you are saying we know that there was nothing wrong with 9/11 because we can only know the harms of 9/11 by means of whatever 9/11 is. Meaninglesss.
why does your topic sentence lack a noun?
why do you never use dictionary definitions?
why do you never use sources?
why aren't you willing to ground your opinion in fact?
White power " is an expression primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations in order to signal racist or racialist viewpoints. It is also a slogan used by the prominent post-Ku Klux Klan group Stormfront and a term used to make racist/racialist viewpoints more palatable to the general public who may associate historical abuses with the terms white nationalist, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist."
So the expression should always be interpreted as intentional racism.
Why make your thesis "it's ok to do stuff while signaling racist intent"? Why not just directly state that there is nothing wrong with racism, which is the only likely interpretation of your mushy phrasing?
Thanks for voting, whiteflame.
I've never liked LGBTQ. As an initialism it is overlong and clunky to say out loud. Inevitably, there will always be another set of folks who want addition to the string and feel excluded by the impossibility of representing such specificity. Besides, when one adds the Q, the queer to the initials you invoke an adjective that includes all the preceding sets and is therefore duplicative. It's like adding a C for condiment to the end of PBJ. Really, the only value of invoking LGBT is to specifically exclude other sets like interbreeders. If you really want to put all us perverts in a single-syllable, five letter, all-purpose box, then queer does very nicely. Queer takes on anybody willing to bear the label and the word gets little use anymore in other connotations by that virtue.
I think we've established that you're perfectly capable of writing a sentence clearly. Therefore, all the broken clauses and unparseable salads of non-agreement that are the hallmark of your offerings are probably tactical.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the topic is, the only engagement we'll see here is about how your foggy writing doesn't mean what anybody but you might interpret it to mean and you'll only ever want to talk about why we don't endorse your sloppy thesis, right?
I'm not sure that I buy that you endorse White Power so much as enjoy the use of words of maximal offense like a shiv to discomfit your fellows online. Cheers for that.
I tend to like a lot of abbreviations, so if you have any limitations on abbr's let me know.
I tend to like a lot of abbreviations, so if you have any limitations on abbr's let me know.
I studied the art of micro-debate under the tutelage of Trent0405.
I love a Mars debate. Nevertheless, if you'd prefer I can withdraw from this debate if you'd rather somebody else took it.
thanks, seldiora!
The irony of believing PizzaGate but then citing Alan "but I never took my underwear off" Dershowitz
I have not looked into it yet but I am hearing tonight that the wonderdrug Trump's is currently promoting is similarly made from cloned stem cells of a baby aborted in 1973.
Since that advocacy makes Trump at least as complicit as Pepsi (Pepsi is motivated by business, Trump by self-interest) does that information diminish your appraisal of Trump or improve your tolerance of stem-cell derivatives?
and also @RationalMadman
Thanks for voting!
Considering what a mistake it was for FDR to run in '44, I'll read that remark as ominous.
, while the problem may be significant, it's not as big of a problem as the movement makes it out to be. In other words, my sense is that the movement represents an undue focus on the issue, plausibly caused by widespread emotional responses to stories of alleged incidents of police brutality.
I think that is the crux of the debatable point, right there. The personal experience of a smallish minority is at odds with national statistics. I am a gay man who is old enough to have experienced a fair amount of police brutality back when brutalizing gays was considered normal law and order across America. I live an old black neighborhood and have witnessed corrupt police brutality against my black friends and neighbors on many occasions. I have witnessed police shooting an unarmed black man for being startled when they woke him in his car. They emptied their guns, reloaded, emptied their gun, reloaded, emptied their guns again. A 14 year old girl in my neighborhood was shot 10 times by police because she had stolen a car and mixed up the brakes and accelerator. Three or four unarmed black men have ben shot by police in my neighborhood in my time living here and the neighbors report that it is much, much better than it used to be. One time, a cop drew his gun on me because he was digging through my trash can and I shone a flashlight on him thinking he was a hobo. So when BLM says stop killing us, I know first hand that they speak from a place of genuine fear and personal grief. I know what is like to be afraid of the police and I know that BLM is brave- the student standing alone before the tanks at Tiananmen.
I have also lived in rural farmlands and ultra white suburbs and so I know that my experience is not shared by large portions of America, who mostly get to see the "protect and serve" side of policing. I have also seen incredible acts of police kindness generosity and courage- sometimes by the same officers I've seen doing corrupt and racist shit. I understand why that majority is skeptical, having little analog experience with violence and only seeing the kind and generous service of police.
Both experiences are real and justified. For huge parts of the US, George Floyd is a blip, a non-representative experience. But in my neighborhood, Floyd's death becomes, "see? that's what I'm talking about. Maybe finally, white people will understand what's being done to us." Both experiences are real and justified.
th, Death I did follow the case as it unfolded and generally accept state and federal judgements on the matter. In my vote, I was looking for evidence that BLM persisted in false narratives regarding that case. As I said, I thought you established BLM self-delusion re: Brown shooting pretty well but then you just said "same thing with Trayvon Martin" although that case preceded BLM's existence and I don't know what their narrative is (beyond listing young Trayvon among the ranks of unarmed black men shot dead). I wanted more evidence there.
I consider you as a very good debater and I think you could craft a winning argument around your position here with a tighter set up (and no forfeit, naturally). Which is not to say I agree with that analysis of BLM's overall contribution.
I would say the false narratives argument is strongest. At the rallies I attended this summer, "hands up, don't shoot" was by far the most popular slogan even though the majority of witnesses and gun residue establish pretty definitively that Brown was reaching into the car when WIlson fired the first two rounds and the witness who reported Brown's hands up was shown to be unreliable. "hands up, don't shoot" was also the most popular response of the vandals and looters when police approached, although I am quite clear that I witnessed little overlap between those rioters and BLM. Nevertheless, BLM can't really back down on the narrative that made them famous or the slogan around which folks rallied this summer. Such false narratives are often at the heart of many a movement (Boston Massacre, for example) and doesn't have much impact on the net positive impact BLM has had on improving govt accountability and standards when it comes to shooting citizens.