We do that somewhat with pinning debates, but sorting by likes might help as well. The "last updated" system which was carried over from DART has the advantage of ensuring every debate gets seen at least a little bit, but there's probably a good way to balance it.
I'm not sure who is saying 'the Jews control the US govt".
I think he might be talking about people who say Netanyahu/Israel control Trump's actions. Which isn't really the same as saying "the Jews" control the government, even though Netanyahu is Jewish. Alternatively, he could be talking about some of the more wacky conspiracy theorists, but those have always been around, even during Russiagate. Now tbf some of the more wacky conspiracy theorists have used Anti-Zionism as a cover to just be generally antisemetic and say something along the lines of "the Jews control America," but I'm not sure whether that's a significantly large group.
Even if Trump’s assassination attempts are fake, his bankruptcies are real.
Okay but that's not really the point.
Maybe, maybe not. This is another assumption.
Sure, but we're speculating. Faking someone's death is not an easy task and is one factor that makes a fake assassination unlikely.
High emotion undermines rationality. Thomas Crooks was not in a good place emotionally.
That makes it a big risk to assume he could be trusted with the scheme and keeping a secret of that magnitude.
The conspiracy to take out a competitor must necessarily be larger making the risk greater and less tempting.
Why? Seems like the same risk for a bigger reward.
Why must we assume the other attempts were faked?
If they weren't, it means people want to kill Trump so Occam's Razor suggests the first one was probably real as well.
Again, 3 or 4 people minimum. Trump doesnt have to be involved. IMO, his involvement is detrimental to success.
The difficulty is those people finding each other. They gotta all be in a position to pull it off, be willing to murder someone, and reveal their intentions to each other without anyone reporting the others.
Trump had a lot of support. If he went away right before an election, the RNC struggles.
From his base, sure, but # of people who love you is not the same as # willing to vote for you. I think Haley for example does better with moderates.
1. Is the shooter dead? Perhaps, his death was faked?
2. Does a 'shooter' comitted to a fake scheme need to know they will REALLY die? No.
These seem even more difficult than finding a shooter who's willing to die. A shooter naive enough not to realize he'd be shot probably isn't smart enough to help carry out a scheme like this.
3. Fake assassination and real assassination are not equivalent crimes.
Yeah but putting a shooter in place who can fire at a presidential candidate without getting stopped by the Secret Service is the same logistical challenge.
4. Why must we assume other attempts were faked? Is it not possible real attempts, and the positive effect they had on public opinion of Trump, ultimately inspired a staged assassination performance?
The one people accused of being faked was the first one.
5. What coordination is required? It could be as simple as a shooter promised riches, someone to kill the shooter, and someone injuring the the president in the 'saving' and urging him to pose for the photo. As little as 3 or 4 people, and one of those would be killed.
I mean, then there's the issue of finding the people willing to participate, then paying the people involved and covering up investigations, which I don't think Trump is smart enough to do on his own.
6. Trump doesnt need to be the planner or even in-the-know. That is an unnecessary assumption.
At that point why not kill him for real? Whoever the RNC picks probably does better in a general. And without him, it's more difficult to get access to the people who need to be involved. Additionally, his reaction is probably what helped his image the most politically from the incident.
7. Someone in the Secret Service would need to run interference.
With their emphasis on screening and security I don't think it would be easy for one of them to go behind the backs of all the others.
I agree with that. Also think it would be pretty difficult to identify who was affected by slavery on an individual level but significantly easier to identify effective reforms.
Systemic economic reforms that focus on universal uplift, criminal justice reform, sentencing guidelines reforms, abolition of private jails, and yes, single payer/Medicare for all healthcare, and better (more equitable, more consistent, and just... more) funding for public education.
I would support that, although I don't think it's what people typically mean when they advocate reparations. I'm down to just do effective governance and call it reparations though.
What kind of reparations are we talking about? Lump sum cash that goes to all black people just regardless of how much they individually were affected by slavery or systemic racism? I think the way reparations are typically framed is way too broad, and I don't think lump-sum handouts really have a great track record. If racial disparities continue, do we just keep giving lump-sum handouts?
Not to mention there's an opportunity cost here. The money could go to better schools in poor neighborhoods or better healthcare. Those are the systemic issues that seem the most pressing currently and probably contribute to racial disparities.
Sure but presumably they went to a ton of trouble to make everything else look realistic including killing a dude to sell it and somehow getting away with that.
Im referring to times he was seen days after the shooting when much attention was drawn to his ear not being super bloody. He had plenty of time to cut it again before then.
Yeah, so he could have cut his ear to keep it looking injured. Not sure why that would be difficult.
They could injure his ear for real though and keep injuring it if it heals. Or injure his arm or something.
You're not really addressing my point. They planned all that but didn't bother to make the ear injury look more genuine, despite that being the easiest part to fake?
This is reaching back a bit, but the thought didn't occur to me until now. I was seeing a post about Trump's ear healing quickly being evidence that the shooting in Pennsylvania was fake. Now, for the shooting to be fake, the poster was totally willing to accept the following as reasonable:
(a) Trump found a shooter who was willing to die for a fake assassination attempt
(b) For some reason, Trump didn't hire someone to kill Joe Biden or Kamala Harris
(c) Presumably Trump either also faked the other attempts on his life just increasing the risk of the conspiracy getting out, or those attempts really happened and yet it's somehow unlikely someone actually wanted to kill him.
(d) Despite all the coordination this required, and Trump's history of poor planning and things accidentally getting leaked, no one came out with proof of the shooting being faked for a quick buck.
(e) The Secret Service was either in on it or didn't figure out the whole thing was fake.
Now, if you're conspiracy minded enough, then I suppose that could make sense. But compared to all those challenges, it seems to me that an injured ear would be the easiest part of the assassination to fake. Just get your ear pierced. Or carry around fake blood. Or keep a bandage on it. It just seems like specious logic to assume Trump succeeded at every other part of a complicated conspiracy with complete dedication from his team, yet they never went to the trouble of making his injury seem as bad as possible.
Hempel’s Dilemma kind of deals with this and reflects some of my own thoughts as well. A physicalist 500 years ago would probably see modern physics as basically magic. If the rules of physics change based on new discoveries, no matter how wacky the stuff we discover, then it seems like it has the potential to include ghosts or spells. I question the extent to which a spirit would really seem crazier than quantum mechanics to a physicalist a few centuries ago. If something breaks the laws of physics, then it's really our understanding of physics that's wrong.
I'm not advocating for court packing or violence. I'm saying on an individual level, someone without systemic power could be justified in illegally migrating if they do so peacefully, particularly if they're doing so to meet their basic needs. A form of civil disobedience, so to speak.
Well the goal of the database isn't just to make people remember anything, it's to help people find the truth. See my post on the subject for further context.
no sovereign country in the world allows the citizens of another country to simply invade another country
This is fine if they're making restrictions for the greater good, but most (I think all) of them are doing this excessively. And as SatanLucy said, is does not imply ought.
Order is established, first, by being law-abiding
I'm sure you would agree that not all laws are justified.
I don't agree that "natural rights" allow indiscriminate migration to wherever we choose without abiding by that nation's established immigration law.
Maybe this would be easier if I understood your position better. Do you disagree that these natural rights exist or disagree with them being a justification for breaking immigration laws when said natural rights are violated?
TV ads are not really useful at leading people to objective truth. And I'm not saying longer is always better, it's better to a point. 10,000 chars is enough for fleshed-out arguments as we've seen in debates.
The length is intentional. If you've ever noticed how unproductive most social media arguments are, then I think you'd agree that we've already exhausted the "search space" for the best 20-word arguments for and against most ideas. The untapped resource is more fleshed-out arguments and fleshed-out counterarguments to the best fleshed-out arguments and so on. I did cap it at 10,000 chars, because I feel like there's enough room to make a fleshed-out argument in that space but still not have it be too much of a chore to read. Since args can be rated, you can focus on the best args for topics, or the best counters to those args, etc.
In theory you could have a chain of 20-word counters, but often those derail pretty fast and get caught on pedantic issues that could be avoided by fleshing out the initial argument better.
freedom of movement rights and property rights rarely mesh
Well, immigration restrictions harm both because they prevent me from inviting immigrants onto my property if I wish to do business with them. If you're implying immigration violates the country's ownership of public roads, I question to what extent the government "rightfully" owns public roads. We wouldn't be happy with the government restricting free speech on public roads, and you can't have free speech somewhere if you don't have freedom of movement there in the first place. Also, if some group claimed the space around my property in order to prevent me from inviting people into and out of my property, I think we would rightfully see this as abusive. Land is a public resource, so I think it's more fairly viewed as more of a way to protect other rights than an innate right in and of itself (also why I support land value taxes). Big difference between saying people can buy homes and have a reasonable expectation of privacy (basic property rights), vs. saying someone isn't allowed to sell their home to anyone from a certain area (immigration restrictions).
free trade can have severe societal costs
I already said I support restrictions for utilitarian ends in some cases, but immigration restrictions right now are a utilitarian loss.
Cause people aren't defined by last name. But sites are defined by root domain. I'm happy as long as someone is using the arg databse though.
That's still DebateCraft...it's just another part of the site.
Probably depends on the law. Which one do you have in mind?
Which one? Also, you haven't even been banned from here and probably won't be.
Personally, I'm not against countries screening who enters and leaves. That said, I think right of movement is a prima facie right for a few reasons. For example, I think people should be allowed to trade with each other unless there's some utilitarian gain from preventing the trade (and even then, the ends might not justify the means). Freedom of association is also impossible if two neighboring countries each refuse to let their citizens enter the other. Additionally, I think allowing foreigners to enter one's property is probably a natural right, and I'd need to see a utilitarian gain before I would consider that to be justified. (This seems intuitive, since they seem like rights someone should probably have in the absence of government, and we probably wouldn't see it as justified for a government to define citizenship in a way that restricts these rights to most of its members.) We can go more in depth on this, but I think that it would be difficult to not consider freedom of movement a natural right without throwing a lot of other natural rights under the bus as well. So I'd support restricting violent criminals from entering and background checking people, but not worker caps like we see today.
Since immigration restrictions restrict freedom in a lot of ways and I really don't see them being a utilitarian gain, hence I would not consider them to be ethically justified. In an ideal world, legal immigration would be scaled up and illegal migration would be bad. But since we live in a less-than-ideal world where immigration laws violate natural rights, I could see it being justified to illegally migrate under certain conditions. For example, if you are living in poverty and illegally move to another country to work because you wouldn't be legally allowed to enter, I'd see that as justified. A bit akin to illegally protesting if freedom of speech were banned or illegally worshiping if freedom of religion were restricted.
Is there a reason you spelled it wylted and not wilted?
Migrants = (this equals) offspring of migrants in USA
No migrants = No offspring of migrants in USA
Sure, I agree with this.
Native Americans are exception if they came there first.
A good chunk of them took land from each other. With how much they were moving around I'd say most living natives had migration somewhere in their past/ancestry by the time the Europeans arrived.
I mean I agree with your overall point about migrants, I just don't think everyone other than a Native American in the US is a migrant. And not sure why Native Americans would be an exception cause they came to the Americas at some point.
When did I say I oppose migrants?
