Double_R

Then do a sudoku or something.

Awe, I really am getting to you aren't I?

Don't blame the messanger kid, look inward.

Alright; so lets then forum debate, "Is transphobia good?" where I take the "yes" position and you take the "no" position.

You mean a formal debate? Not interested, especially a topic like that. Whether it's good or not depends on your values. If you are cool with being hateful and intolerant towards people who are different than you, then it's fine. Otherwise it's not. There, topic resolved.

I've studied epistemology. Quiz me for proof.

Yeah, you just proved my point.

First of all, quiz you how, by asking you questions you can just Google or ChatGPT?

That aside, epistemology isn't something you memorize and take a quiz over, it's something you develop a deep understanding of and what guides you in your everyday process of forming and testing your own beliefs. The fact that you think you can prove you've studied it by offering a few answers to a few questions, even without assistance, strongly suggests you have little to no understanding of it.

What makes you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong instead of vice versa?

My confidence on any given subject comes from two places; first is my approach towards telling what is true in the first place. That is my core value, well before politics even comes into play. I am the type of person who cannot function if I have any doubts about my stance, whether at work or any other situation where the actual truth is paramount to achieving desired results. So everything about the way I operate begins with a desire to understand what's true over what's convenient, and I've done the work to refine that process.

The second is consistently reinforced affirmation. If my position is wrong, someone would be able to show me how or why. They wouldn't need to deflect, falsely equivocate, or make things up. But that's what I consistently run into.

That's not to say I'm always right, that's just what I experience when it comes to issues I confidently think I'm right about, and that's why.

And why are you so passionate about a minority position that doesn't impact you?

I'm not. You're the one who keeps bringing it up, I'm just here looking around for things to respond too, and there you always go.

What I am passionate about when it comes to this topic is the way that right wingers pretend the left is obsessed with these things when it's you guys constantly putting this in the forefront of American politics. 2024 proved not only the absurd extent of this but also it's effectiveness. That really makes me feel sad for this country. Other countries look at us like we're idiots, and they're not wrong.

but come up with better arguments

Why? You haven't responded to them or came up with any of your own.

so if you try and convince a person of color like me that TWAW

Already started to you that this is not my position, nor is this the position of the overwhelming majority of trans activists. It's yet another caricature you guys invented.

Then do a sudoku or something.

Awe, I really am getting to you aren't I?

Don't blame the messanger kid, look inward.

Alright; so lets then forum debate, "Is transphobia good?" where I take the "yes" position and you take the "no" position.

You mean a formal debate? Not interested, especially a topic like that. Whether it's good or not depends on your values. If you are cool with being hateful and intolerant towards people who are different than you, then it's fine. Otherwise it's not. There, topic resolved.

I've studied epistemology. Quiz me for proof.

Yeah, you just proved my point.

First of all, quiz you how, by asking you questions you can just Google or ChatGPT?

That aside, epistemology isn't something you memorize and take a quiz over, it's something you develop a deep understanding of and what guides you in your everyday process of forming and testing your own beliefs. The fact that you think you can prove you've studied it by offering a few answers to a few questions, even without assistance, strongly suggests you have little to no understanding of it.

What makes you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong instead of vice versa?

My confidence on any given subject comes from two places; first is my approach towards telling what is true in the first place. That is my core value, well before politics even comes into play. I am the type of person who cannot function if I have any doubts about my stance, whether at work or any other situation where the actual truth is paramount to achieving desired results. So everything about the way I operate begins with a desire to understand what's true over what's convenient, and I've done the work to refine that process.

The second is consistently reinforced affirmation. If my position is wrong, someone would be able to show me how or why. They wouldn't need to deflect, falsely equivocate, or make things up. But that's what I consistently run into.

That's not to say I'm always right, that's just what I experience when it comes to issues I confidently think I'm right about, and that's why.

And why are you so passionate about a minority position that doesn't impact you?

I'm not. You're the one who keeps bringing it up, I'm just here looking around for things to respond too, and there you always go.

What I am passionate about when it comes to this topic is the way that right wingers pretend the left is obsessed with these things when it's you guys constantly putting this in the forefront of American politics. 2024 proved not only the absurd extent of this but also it's effectiveness. That really makes me feel sad for this country. Other countries look at us like we're idiots, and they're not wrong.

but come up with better arguments

Why? You haven't responded to them or came up with any of your own.

so if you try and convince a person of color like me that TWAW

Already started to you that this is not my position, nor is this the position of the overwhelming majority of trans activists. It's yet another caricature you guys invented.

They argued that any woman can be as physically strong as any man; maybe even stronger than any man (personal life, not rando on the internet).

I don't know anyone who has argued this, certainly no one in any position of power or influence. This is yet another example of where you guys cherry pick rando's on Twitter or Bluesky so you can claim that is "the left". Which there's nothing actually wrong with, until you start pretending that this left you identified is actually what you're up against with regards to politics, that's where it becomes outright disingenuous.

You debate people to change their minds.

No, that's why you debate people. Changing people's minds is nice, but that's far from the only reason. I do it for the intellectual exercise and to test my own positions. The world is an insane place, I debate to see if I can find that it's more sane than I think but most of the time that's not the case. A man can keep trying though.

On the trans issue, if there is a bad argument, then you refute it, if there is a good argument, then you label it as transphobic.

If I'm labeling it transphobic, that's because it's transphobic. And if I'm giving it that label, I will explain why, in painstaking detail I think that is. What's disingenuous is for you to pretend that I just label it and move on. There are many things you can say about me, including many false things. Much of it I can just brush off as closemindedness, but to suggest I don't make myself clear and show you exactly how I got from A to Z is beyond closeminded, that's just stupid.

That's how you interpret that definition.

No, that's how English interprets the definition. It isn't just that the words make that unequivocally clear, it's also common sense in how you apply such a term. If you don't know that it's no wonder you believe the silly things you do.

That's why I don't care about official definitions for scary but legal terms; you can interpret definitions however you want too for your selective purpose.

Yes, that's why understanding English as well as epistemology comes in. You're absolutely right that people can interpret things in any way they want, we still to this day have flat earthers. The question is whether you care about reality, and if you do what are the best methods to attain an understanding of it.

You don't have to care about it, you can just decide that it's whatever you want it to be and "interpret" it that way. I don't see what the point of that is not to each his own.

If a bigot is defined as "Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief"

It's not. That was only the first part of the definition and that specific part was clearly not referring to "any" belief, but rather the belief towards the individual/group in question. There was more, but apparently this is where you stopped reading.

That's cap; there have been plenty that believe that but don't realize it.

They will say

My god dude, I'm talking about no one *within our conversation*. This was a characterization you made about my position, I'm telling you it's a bullshit strawman.

Everything you say I will think you are being a left wing parroted and you (in your mind) will be genuinely convinced that your beliefs are really yours. The brainwashed don't see themselves as brainwashed.

Well thank you for admitting that you are stubbornly closeminded and therefore incapable of changing your mind.

Now that that part is settled, you really should ask yourself which one of us is actually more susceptible to being manipulated (aka brainwashed). The person who believes in and studies epistemology (something you have clearly never done) or the person comes into a conversation already decided on the outcome.

You won't change the minds of right wingers.

Not why I'm here. This is more about watching the cognitive dissonance in action. The side stepping, the strawmanning, the denial of basic facts and logic, the walls you all build around yourselves to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths (you're brainwashed!)... The efforts to hold onto those opinions is fascinating and enlightening. It teaches me more and more about the world I live in, and it's scary, but I'd rather see it for what it actually is.

Nope; I steelmanned your party

No, but you think you did which is cute. It also places the problem on full display. Enjoying arguing with caricatures, looks like fun. I'm sure it feels very satisfying to own those [imaginary] libs.

First existence can only be created from non-existence or not be created at all. I dont see why this is so difficult to understand.

Because it's a logical contradiction, which makes it incoherent (aka unable to be understood) by definition.

So it doesnt matter which theory of first existence you believe in, creation from non-existence, or eternal existence, both support God.

Of course it does, because God is just a plug in for the point at which we cannot know anything further.

God, defined as supreme being above logic, cannot be in any way stopped from existing. Problem of atheists is that they assume logic is above God, which contradicts definition of God.

Yeah, this is the problem.

To define something as being "above logic" by definition makes your claim irrational. At that point there is no longer a purpose in continuing a conversation with you because there are no rules. You can make things up that feel good to you, so I can just do the same. I always liked unicorns, so I guess those are real too. So are dragons, bigfoot, martians... Whatever we want, it's all real because logic doesn't matter so there's no mechanism left to refute them.

I agree with this. God is the Creator of existence, and if it wasnt for God, it would be impossible for anything to exist.

So a non-existent God created existence. Wow, that's an impressive trick.

Typical right wing BS. Strawman the left, then claim to be above the left because you're above the caricature you invented.

My views have been clear and consistent throughout. If you think something has changed you're clearly not reading.

Disgusting dude...really disgusting.

Yes, I agree. It is disgusting that the political right is where almost every racist, nazi, and fascist resides, and that these are not tiny fringes of these movements. Very disgusting indeed, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

You really need to go back and read it then. It's only two paragraphs. I'm not sure how you missed it.

I am well aware of what you said in your two paragraphs, I'm not sure if you are. Here, from post 32 for context:

"And control of the population is another reason the Left pushes gun control. Not all on the Left see it this way, but a disarmed population is much easier to control as a totalitarian government. All they need to do is..."

"Not all on the Left see it this way" is in no way a suggestion that the group you're talking about is not representative of the majority. In fact if that were your position you wouldn't have phrased it this way, you would have referred to them as a segment of the left rather than framing your characterization as "the left" before creating this exclusion. That's communication 101.

You are the one incorrectly using Occam's razor in order to limit the number of possible answers

No, I'm not.

Occam's razor doesn't limit the possibilities, it doesn't even address what the possibilities are. Occam's razor measures the assumptions within given explanations and deems the explanation with the fewest assumptions to be the most reasonable out of those provided.

What I have argued is that the most reasonable explanation is the only explanation that should be asserted or accepted as the probable truth. If you don't believe in that then you don't believe in reason itself.

To assert more than one explanation as your position is, by definition, to not take a position on what you think the explanation is. But that's not what you did. You clearly asserted what you think explains the left's stance on gun control. I'm criticizing that assertion as being a violation of Occam's razor. So either explain why Occam's razor shouldn't be accepted as the proper test (without strawmanning it or my construction of it) or adjust your position.

That doesn't win people over. Change your strategy.

I'm not trying to win people over. We're on a debate site, not running a political action committee.

What makes you so certain that you're correct as opposed to me?

My level of certainty comes from the time I've taken to study epistemology and critical thinking, frequenting sites such as this one being a big part of that journey. If there were better arguments against my position I'm sure I would find them on a place like this, that's why I come here.

I guess then trans people meet this then. They are unreasonably attached to their belief and they are predijuiced towards members of MAGA based on their membership of that group.

Wow, even after quoting the definition you still don't know what the word means or how to apply it.

The belief one (the bigot) is unreasonably or obstinately attached to it's the belief about the person or group in question. You don't get to label trans people as bigots because they hold an obstinate belief about themselves.

Being a fascist is no longer a bad thing is the point because anyone with one right wing and authoritarian opinion qualifies as a facsist.

Not even sure why I'm continuing this conversation, this is incredibly stupid.

No one said, argued, or suggested that all it takes to qualify as a fascist is one authoritarian opinion. Now you're just making shit up to avoid the argument.

It's not that; it's that your side always...

Yeah you can stop there. I am not "the left", I'm an individual with my own opinions and I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks. So if you're going to accuse me of not thinking for myself then you need to come with evidence of me parroting talking points I don't understand or flip flipping on my positions based on what someone else says/does. If you can't do that then you have nothing but mindless and rehearsed retorts which makes talking to you a huge waste of time.

Bro just compared a seatbelt to a lockdown.

No genius, I provided an analogy. Do you understand what an analogy is? Do you understand how it differs from a comparison?

Yeah, I see DoubleR's portrayal of Kirk as a "Nazi" cartoonish at best and malicious at worst.

Sure me where I portrayed Kirk as a Nazi. I'll wait.

Oh for sure, the most radicalized ones will think the rhetoric is real, as in thinking Kirk was an actual Nazi ready to creep into their homes at any moment in some cartoon outfit.

Yes, it's called stochastic terrorism, and the left has been warning about it for years everytime Trump launches his overt partisan attacks on democrats. It's always funny to see though how that sentiment is always disregarded as since kind of derangement syndrome by the lefties but when it happens to their own, suddenly they understand full well what we're talking about.

The very idea that it's all made-up rhetoric for shock value would never register to that part of your country, the part that laughs and cheers at assassinations. Their reality most definitely matters to the normal parts of your country.

Again, the crazies will always exist within our society, on every side. We don't judge any movement by them until they gain prominence.

When criticizing the other side, what matters is that those criticisms are based on reality. When for example, a president claims am election was stolen, he is absolutely responsible for the violence that ensues because he's the one spreading misinformation. When we on the left call him or for that by accurately describing it as part of his fascist ideology, that is absolutely legitimate because it's true.

Truth is the standard, otherwise you're claiming that wrongdoers cannot be criticized. That's absurd.

we all know if someone in your media is going to use the language "racist, nazi, fascist...." we all know exactly what side of the fence that rhetoric is.

Yes, because we all know what side of the fence these groups within the US identify with. It's not rhetoric to call a spade a spade, reality matters.

A lot of unnecessary deaths have been prevented by armed guards. That's why the Secret Service exists.

Yes but this is an option available to only a tiny sliver of the population so it cannot be put forward as a reasonable solution to a societal problem.

By the second paragraph, it can be seen where your point that generalizations must refer to a majority in order to be "genuine" is incorrect.

Nothing in your link refutes what I've argued, and it is common sense than when you generalize any group with characteristics that do not apply to the majority of that group, you are being sloppy at best and disingenuous at worst.

Occam's razor is not a "logical argument," but it is still not an end all rule since it deals with what is most likely, not what is definitively true. You are outright wrong because violating Occam's razor does not definitionally make something irrational.

Yes, it does. To be rational is by definition to be in accordance with logic. To be logical you must be in accordance with it's most basic laws, which are built on one primary pillar: consistency.

Occam's razor is the test of whether your analysis is founded on that primary pillar. If it is ok to accept an explanation as the best one despite more assumptions being necessary to substantiate it over alternative explanations, then any position can be justified. That's the opposite of consistency in reasoning, aka the opposite of being rational, which is why it violates Occam's razor.

Therefore, when a government official advocates for gun control, is the desire to reduce harm the onlyreasonable explanation? 

No. Historical precedence shows that disarming the population under the guise of public safety for the purpose of control is a reasonable explanation. The unreasonable position is to ignore this historical fact to exclude the possibility.

This isn't what we're talking about. You didn't argue it was a possibility that shouldn't be excluded, you offered it as your explanation for what you're seeing. That means out of all other explanations, you think this is the most reasonable one. That's why I put forward what the test of that is and how your explanation fails that test. To disregard that is to disregard reason.

Because majorities are harder to assilimiante than minorities.

Argumentum ad populum is a formal logical fallacy for a reason.

Might brings the benefits of being right.

Then that demonstrates that you don't care about actually being right, only being in power. So what is the point of debating me on any of this? And why push back when I tell you that you're unserious? This is the quintessential embodiment of what that phrase means.

If you get angry at a majority, then you become irrelevant.

I don't care about being relevant, I care about being right. As in actually right. As in, in accordance with facts and logic. And by facts, I mean that which is in accordance with reality. Not my reality or your reality, actual reality. The one reality that we all share regardless of what we think or feel about it. That's my value, if yours is different then admit it loud and clear.

Well, why would someone be conservative to begin with? It's because the right wing opinions the left believes are bigoted (transphobia, homophobia, Zionism, anti-abortion, anti-poor person, etc). People who are non-leftists have a reason for identifying like that.

Conservatism and bigotry are two entirely different things. I think you would benefit by looking up the definition of a bigot and educate yourself on what it means.

By the left's standards, America is a nation of fascists

Again, fascism has an actual definition. It's not about standards, it's about facts and logic. If you vote for a fascist because he's a fascist, then you're a fascist by definition. If you vote for someone despite the recognition of their fascist tendencies, then you are supporting a fascist.

Half the country voted for that. That, by definition, means that half the country supported fascism. That's a fact, and it doesn't care how you feel about it.

Mr. Left is 100 million people or so. You are in a hive mind and don't realize it.

It was a sarcastic remark pointing out the silliness of your generalization.

That aside, it always amuses me to hear people who cannot offer any rational refutation of my arguments tell me I'm the one not thinking for myself.

A hindsight mistake = A concession.

This is where reading comprehension helps. I went on to explain what that meant, naturally you just clipped the part that sounded good to you and moved on.

When you get in a car do you put on a seatbelt? And if so, but you don't crash, does that make your seatbelt decision a "mistake"? No, of course not that's ridiculous.

When we were in the middle of COVID we had to work with the information we had available to us at that time, given our lack of tested information it was more than reasonable to go further than what was probably necessary to protect public health. So looking back at it 5 years later and saying "we probably went further than we needed to" isn't a concession, it's reaffirming that we did what we did as a precaution. If you still don't understand this point than Google the definition of "precaution".

Also, did you really post that snippet of the me too surveys as some sort of gotcha? Did you even read what I wrote?

Why do I need to pull up anything, you have the internet at your finger tips as well. Here, let's let ChatGPT have a look:

❌ Isolated far-right online reactions

There were some fringe online posts — forums, blogs, and anonymous commenters — expressing hostility toward Giffords or making callous jokes. These were largely condemned and not considered representative of any major political movement.

Some commenters (on far-right blogs or 4chan-type boards) made mocking or dismissive remarks about Giffords, but outright cheering was extremely rare and widely denounced.

Because of course there was, and keep in mind that this example occurred in 2011, social media did not have the same reach and was more restrictive back then.

The point here is that the internet is a cesspool of filth, everyone knows that. So to pretend there merely finding it within any large group is somehow representative of that group is either grossly disingenuous or remarkably stupid.

The point at which it can be reasonably argued to be representative of a political movement is when prominent and influential figures within that movement join in. And when it comes to that, there is no comparison between the political right vs the left. You will find nothing like this on the left, meanwhile on the right you don't have to look any further than the sitting president of the United States who last year stood on a stage in front of supporters while running for office and joked about an attack against his political opponent where their husband's head got bashed in with a hammer. And that's just one small anecdote of many many more I could give.

This isn't a both sides issue.

Names and pronouns are different.

Yeah, feels that way when you are a bigot. When you're not a bigot, it doesn't make a difference. Julian/Julz, he/she... It's just words.

That tells you what you need to know about 82% of the population according to Ipsos.

I seriously doubt you are accurately representing their survey, but it doesn't matter. If 82% feel the same way then yes, 82% are hateful bigots.

I don't know why you keep repeating this number or talking about majorities. Maybe you need that because it makes you feel better to think you're not alone in your bigotry. Which would then big the question as to why you continue to hold these positions of you feel the need to justify them to yourself. Don't know, you sound like you have a lot of internal issues to work out.

If all non-leftists aren't serious to you

No, you can stop there. I don't lay that charge on anyone based on their political views, I lay that charge at those who pretend they don't understand what I'm saying in order to avoid having to address it the way you just did.

The majority of every race doesn't support trans rights defined as, "do you think the TW are real women?"

Almost no one at all agrees with that, including myself. That's what happens when your views are not rationally defendable, you have to make up your own opposition so you can attack something no one is saying. I hope that makes you feel better though.

There is nothing wrong with conceding an issue to the right; it's happened before (believe women; vaccine mandates, etc). When the left conceded these issues

Yeah, I'd really love to talk to Mr. Left to find out why he conceded these issues. Especially since no such concession ever happened.

As usual, you can won the debate so you strawman the opposition. "Believe women" is a slogan uttered by a small sememe of the left that didn't think their slogan through. No serious person actually thinks what you and every other right winger pretends it means - that we're supposed to shut down or critical thinking faculties and blindly accept whatever these women say.

Vaccine mandates weren't conceded by the left, they (the COVID ones) were always intended to be a temporary solution to a global pandemic. And to the extent some on the left now say they went to far, that's hardly a concession, that's more like hindsight which is always 20/20. The mandates were a precaution, and if you know what that word means you'd know that the likelihood of it going to far isn't a mistake, that's the intention.

I don't care who did it. It will never erase the cheers and laughter I saw on your news of so many Americans celebrating his death.

Do you feel the same way about all the people cheering and laughing when violence is perpetrated against left wing figures, or does it only matter when it's the side you care about?

Which Charlie agreed with, but his idea of reasonable precautions was having armed guards.

That is in no way, a reasonable means of preventing unnecessary deaths.

You are being intentionally obtuse. I'm not going to explain how generalizations work.

If you understood how they work you wouldn't be making the claim 'the left wants to pass gun laws in order to disarm and thereby control the population'.

First, I made clear that is not the only reason, and not everyone on the left is seeking to disarm the population. Second, you are making claims about "the left" as well. Stop doing that if you are going to be so obtuse when someone else does it.

What I'm doing is fundamentally different. Generalizations are first off all only genuine when one is talking about a sizable majority of whatever group is being referred to. There's no argument for asserting your characterization of the left is majority represented.

Second, when I say "the left" or "the right" I'm talking about what I believe the majority of individuals within that group want, not what sounds scary if we pretend these groups are linked to a Borg hive mind where their individuality is erased.

I'm not going to make a list of every politician and their political affiliations just because you're too obtuse to understand generalizations. I gave an example, and if you think Trudeau can't step back into a position of authority in the future, then you are again being obtuse.

I didn't ask you to name every one, I asked you to talk about done of the ones you're referring to when you make this claim. The only one you've provided is Trudeau and notably didn't even bother to attempt an explanation as to how it made sense, just referenced the possibility that he might some day, despite no evidence he would even think about it. Clearly your initially started position fails, and that's fine. Just admit that, to yourself if no one else.

Occam's razor is not the end all of logical arguments. Honestly, it's not even a very good one because of the abuse it receives due to the limitation of human knowledge.

Occam's razor isn't an argument at all, it's a test of whether logic is being applied correctly. To ignore it is to be irrational by definition.

It takes a truly obtuse person to assume that the simplest explanation is that all politicians are upstanding and moral individuals genuinely seeking the best interest of the public rather than their own selfish desires.

What's obtuse is to continue to defend against another person's arguments buy strawmanning them when their original point should have been clear.

I said nor implied anything about "all politicians", nor do my arguments require them to be moral individuals setting aside their own personal ambitions. All you need to do is take your own arguments to their logical conclusion and recognize how absurd that picture is.

Gun laws have to be passed by Congress. But congressional representatives have no role in "controlling the population", all they do is pass laws. Those laws are then enforced by officials within the executive branch, so if anyone wanted to nefariously control the population it would be them.

The argument against your stated position has nothing to do with assuming moral purity, it's about the fact that the actual people who would be at the heart of this plot you describe attain no personal benefit and therefore have no personal motivation for carrying it out, thereby leaving you to assume malice with no purpose and for which there is no evidence. It's right on par with 9/11 was an inside job.

Should people be pressured to put on a performance to make others feel better?

The fact that you think referring to someone by their preferred pronoun is a performance tells us everything we need to know.

If I told you my name was Julian, but I go by "Julz", are you putting on a performance by calling me Julz?

No, of course not, that's ridiculous. Referring to someone in accordance with how they wish to be referred to isn't a performance, it's a common courtesy. The only thing that might require a performance is doing so while holding back your hatred and disgust of that individual.

That's clearly why you think it's a performance.

And if your hatred and disgust isn't already obvious by that point, the fact that you feel the need to continue putting you're energy into making this nonsensical argument only further displays the level of disgust and hatred you have here which is undergerdding your position. Instead of just respecting these people and moving on, you have to sit here creating thread after thread about it. It's just sad.

If refusing to put on a performance makes 82% of the population hateful, then 82% of the population is hateful.

If 82% of the population thinks treating trans people with the same kennel of respect we'd give anyone else requires a performance, then yes, they would be hateful.

You were trying to change the subject to healthcare.

So you have no reading comprehension and/or are just not a serious person. Got it.

China. That's a totalitarian government.

Yes, and like I said, it doesn't actually exist. China's government is an entity on paper, it doesn't have cognizance, it doesn't have goals or motivations. The goals and/or motivations we ascribe to it are represented by the people running it, so if you're going to claim that this government wants something you have to put that claim through the lense of the people making those decisions in order to make sense of it. Otherwise you're just spewing out words that mean absolutely nothing, which is exactly what you did by claiming "the left" wants gun control in order to control the population.

And there are certainly more politicians than him that have wet dreams about China's government.

Then talk about those individual politicians and what their personal motivations are. Last time I checked Justin Trudeau is a private citizen now, so any actions he would have taken to control the populace would now be controlling him as well, which makes for a pretty terrible reason to engage in what you describe.

the Left seeks more government regulation. Totalitarian governments are characterized by high amounts of government regulation. There is a very simple path to connect Leftism with totalitarian style governance.

Yes, you can connect them, but you are also completely disregarding Occam's razor to draw the conclusions you are suggesting. Regulations are far easier explained by a desire to reduce harm in the very ways they are designed to do rather than as some form of conspiracy to control the population.

You can argue they will be ineffective, or have unintended consequences, that is far less of a reach than what you're suggesting.

My point is just that both sides "burn through goodwill," and regardless of whether social media comments should harm the public perception of the Democratic party, I think that it does.

But that’s the whole problem. I'm not disagreeing with you about what is the case regarding the overall perception, I'm pointing out that that perception is not reality, and therefore anyone who acts as if there is not a meaningful difference between the two parties and/or movements are themselves complicit in spreading harmful misinformation.

If the Democrats on social media just chilled a bit...

But we all know this will never be the case, so whatever follows is pointless.

And it will never be the case - not because we're talking about democrats - but because we're talking about human beings in an age where anyone can add their voice behind the anonymity of their own screen. It doesn't matter what category of person we lump them into, any large number of people will always have shit posters, so concluding anything about a movement based only on the bottom filth of thier posters is grossly disingenuous.

You would only refer to the person as a she if you think they're a woman.

How you refer to them is a choice you make. Anti-trans people love to act like you’re all incapable referring to someone in a way differently than how you actually see them, it’s grossly disingenuous and frankly just stupid. You’re pretending to be incapable of pretending.

This is a culture war thread; not a healthcare thread. Make your own healthcare thread. This is what people say when they can't defend their positions.

What people do when they can’t defend their positions is pretend they’re responding to something the other person isn’t saying.

In no way shape or form was I trying to change the subject to healthcare, but you already know that.

You started off this thread saying you would “sarcastically accept” being called hateful, but when I broke down for you exactly why people would call you that you couldn’t take it, so here we are.

I used healthcare as an example to contrast against what you’re actually spending your time focusing on. The point: your focus on one issue (that does nothing to make your life better) while ignoring other issues (that could make your life better) demonstrates your priorities, or rather your lack thereof.

82% of Americans are hateful by your standard; get over it.

I’m not the one who needs to get over it, you’re the one who seems to be triggered by having someone else point out to you why it’s obvious that you’re hateful.

The main issue that most gun owners have with ardent gun control advocates is that they clearly know quite literally nothing about guns, don't care to know anything about them, but still feel fit to weigh in on how they ought to be regulated with no small amount of fervor.

If someone doesn’t know much about something but speaks on it anyway it’s fair to criticize them, that doesn’t mean they are ultimately wrong in what they’re saying.

The bottom line is that a gun is an extremely dangerous product and what gun safety enthusiasts like myself want is for them to be treated like any other dangerous product or at least apply the same logic to them that we do everything else.

I was refuting the following statement of yours that was demonstrably false: "Guns meanwhile have no other purpose other than to kill people"

Yeah, and you decided to refute the part of my statement that was irrelevant while ignoring the actual point. So congrats on the gotcha, I guess.

As I said, the totalitarian government benefits from having a population that is easier to control. If you have all the guns, no one really gets to question what you do.

And as I’ve already pointed out, the totalitarian government isn’t actually a thing that exists. You can’t point to it and go that’s the totalitarian government right there. What you can point to are individual people who represent it, and it’s those individual people who make decisions on its behalf.

So I ask you again, who are the people that you think benefit from this? Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton? Cause none of them control jack shit right now, so I don’t see how any of them would have benefited from this conspiracy of sorts you seem to have concocted.

I understand that you believe gun control will have certain intended effects. What you fail to understand is that you are probably wrong in most of your presuppositions regarding gun control

Ok, let’s start with the most basic. True or False:

More guns = more gun violence

?

I just think it's weird for people to use that quote against him if they aren't prepared to actually oppose the 2nd amendment. I think you and I aren't really in disagreement here

Mostly yes. Again, I am not condoning the way many have used that quote to mock or gloat, just pointing out that there is a real irony worth reflecting on when someone talks about some loss of life being acceptable the to then become a high profile example of exactly that cost.

We can get lost in the details all day long, but the greater point here from my view is that the sentiment he expressed about some loss being acceptable isn’t horrific because it’s technically incorrect, but because it’s being used to defend an approach to this issue that is indefensible. Hunting, self defense, etc. don’t require the proliferation and total lack of checks that we have today. At some level we have to take reasonable precautions to prevent unnecessary deaths. And if you don’t believe that there’s not much you can really say when you become the victim.