Shoresy

What's the point of retirement if you can't?

UK and Canada have nothing to gain or lose from whatever Trump thinks his country needs. Our backyards are filled with more rubbish than we can handle. We don't need to feel obligated to clear someone else's rubbish. That's how our backyards get filled with filth, when we stop looking because someone else nearby told us to stop looking. Both Canada and UK are the "Emerald Cities" under the grip of the Ozian "Man behind the curtain".... and we were taught at an early age to think the highly visible wicked witch is the one behind it all.....

Are these just imagined issues used to justify hatred and hostility towards transgender people?

Bingo. This is why it's a political issue, because one side frames it as hatred and the other side frames it as protecting.

Stupid people on both sides drive this by chasing their respective political strawmen on every issue and believing the conveniently inflammatory framing of some very fat cats in the halls of power without question. That's how you get screaming protesters in the street that can't answer the simple question "Why are you protesting?"

Face facts, the Sensible Party...

I saw a lot of communist flags waved proudly on the US "No Kings" day. There's not a sensible bone in their heads, and not a page read of a history book among any of them.

Why do you obsess over Trump every day? Most Americans don't.

To be fair, more Canadians obsess over Trump than Americans do as well. At least that's "the message" on CBC. It's an easy way for leaders in the UK and Canada to take control of....the "stupid." Trump doesn't set Canada's tax rate. Trump doesn't tell Parliament Hill how much gets spent poorly on Canadian healthcare. He has no say over housing policy, zoning laws, or why rent in cities like Ottawa, Toronto, or Vancouver is outrageously high and unsustainable. Trump doesn't set the Canadian policies that allow drug-addled zombies to walk up and down our highways barefoot in freezing weather. He doesn’t control Canadian immigration targets, refugee intake, or how quickly applications are processed. All of that is set by Canadian ministers and enforced by Canadian agencies. The danger, of course, is not merely distraction, but abdication: a political culture that prefers imported outrage to domestic accountability. That's a poor substitute for proper governance.

How's the obsession doing in UK? Same bullshit distraction I suppose? Same bullshit outcomes? Plenty of stupid, I suppose.

The entire book was a thought experiment. I think you might have missed the essence of the book if you think it was entertainment slop.

Have you read Lord of the Flies?

 autonomy to the child.

This is rarely a benefit to the child. If ever. Kids need guidance first, autonomy later. You can ease them into autonomy with guided choices until they are ready to bear the consequences on their own.

Under common law, a parent can take money that their child earned and then go spend it on alcohol. I think it's pretty obvious how that is not protecting the child.

What if the child spends it on alcohol because the parent won't teach the child to delay gratification?

Canada is no longer a defined nation. It's more like an economic zone. Which the UK may also become if it resists nationhood.

Yep, like I stated most Americans vote for who they were programmed to vote for.

Also, the non-Americans. They vote for the politicians who stand and clap for invaders and sit and scowl for Americans. Hence, the Save Act debate.

The below average American votes Trump.

This is objectively false as a generality, as the people protecting stupid people in the US from the Save Act on the basis that the Save Act disenfranchises stupid voters are the very same people who refused to vote for Trump. Unless you are even a deeper level of stupid and believe Democrats actually want to create more Trump voters. It may also be the case that Democrat leaders can get on camera and declare their voters to be too stupid to get the same ID you would need to get a job, government benefits, or a bank account, and get away with it because many of their less-than-educated voters can't understand English well enough to know when they are being insulted.

If the Save Act debate settled one thing, it's where the plurality of the stupid/lazy voters REALLY are.

It's only blackmail if the penalty of wrongthink is shame. If it's fines and jail, then it is extortion.

I have a ton of Steam games, and I never even got into the video games with cards and decks....

Enjoy your retirement!

It wants to blackmail equality where there is no way to force it.

This is poetic, but I'd say it's closer to extortion than blackmail.

we’ll both watch as what I’m saying becomes more and more apparent over time just as it did in Germany

Germany eventually became a shithole after Hitler deranged people took over and implemented the long game plan. America doesn't need to repeat that mistake.

Is it really too much to ask people to not be extreme and deranged?

So they’re basically being told that they either don’t exist, or are so delusional that they themselves don’t understand what category they fit into.

What's worse is that they are basically being told that even though they objectively have an xy or xx chromosome, they are not one of the biological sexes, and therefore not traditionally human.

You've made more posts and threads about Debby than anyone here. The obsession is real.

Hot take: The Marshall Plan didn't build a welfare state; it built a welfare continent.

Did they? Or did they celebrate too early?

And now Germany buys Russian oil.....sometimes, you can't win.

I think what is really lost from real education is that science is all about probabilities. There are no clear absolute right or absolute wrong things in science. You can repeat an experiment 1000 times, but it is no guarantee that the 1001st time you will get the identical result. What we accept as truth is always based on overwhelming evidence so strong that we treat it as an absolute truth, but underneath, that acceptance is still grounded in probability, which is why science constantly does error-checking. And why verification is always necessary. I know that's going deep into the epistemology rabbit hole, but it's worth noting that there will always be a chance that whatever you think is absolute, actually is not. To me, the real beauty of science is the refining of probabilities, and not the elimination of probabilities. For most people, the box either has a check in it, or it does not. There is no questioning the box or the checkmark.

We're talking about the criminal conviction in Austria if we're talking about censorship of holocaust denial, a case that Lipstadt herself vehemently disagreed with. 

I'll go look that up, thanks.

Looking over some of the facts of his libel case, do you really think sleeves were not rolled up at the trial to prove what evidence was credible?

I seriously doubt there's a functioning government in Iran atm.

It's 2026, there's plenty of AI stimulation outlets, Sarge.

Iran lost oil wells and refineries. Most of the oil is still in the ground and safe. Isn't that what the climate alarmists wanted all along? You would think this would be an eco-terrorist's wet dream.

Strange that you would defend the obvious hypocrisy here.

Maybe it's only Iranian Oil that Greta thinks was climate-friendly.

Additionally, the prohibition of AI-generated spam, even at seemingly excessive volumetric thresholds such as 100 posts per day, raises profound moral concerns when examined through the lens of participatory equity and systemic inclusivity within digitally mediated discourse infrastructures. While such content may be superficially characterized as redundant or low-value, its categorical exclusion risks enacting a form of quantitative discrimination that privileges traditional modes of engagement over emergent, high-frequency expressive modalities enabled by artificial intelligence. In this context, volume itself should not be conflated with harm, as iterative and repetitive contributions can serve as mechanisms for idea reinforcement, pattern exploration, and decentralized knowledge propagation across the platform’s communicative topology.

Furthermore, the moral objection to banning AI-generated spam must be situated within a broader recognition of the fluid boundary between signal and noise, which is often subjectively constructed and contextually contingent. What may be dismissed as spam under one evaluative framework could, under another interpretive paradigm, constitute a distributed form of collective ideation or exploratory reasoning facilitated by algorithmic assistance. By imposing rigid constraints on output frequency, DebateArt risks suppressing novel forms of discourse emergence and inadvertently curtailing the adaptive potential of its user base to experiment with new communicative strategies in an AI-augmented environment.

Finally, enforcing restrictions on high-volume AI-generated content introduces a precedent that may erode foundational principles of expressive freedom by prioritizing platform manageability over user autonomy. Rather than defaulting to exclusionary practices, a more ethically coherent approach would involve the development of integrative moderation schemas capable of accommodating elevated content throughput while preserving overall discourse quality. In doing so, the platform could maintain a commitment to inclusivity and innovation without resorting to prohibitive measures that may disproportionately impact users who rely on AI as a primary vector for engagement.

Banning AI-generated posts from DebateArt is deeply morally problematic because it fails to holistically recognize the multidimensional paradigm shift that artificial intelligence represents within the broader ecosystem of communicative engagement and epistemological participation in contemporary digital discourse environments. At its core, such a prohibition does not merely restrict a tool, but rather implicitly marginalizes the emergent synergy between human cognition and machine-assisted augmentation, which together facilitate more inclusive, scalable, and dynamically adaptive forms of expressive articulation. By excluding AI-mediated contributions, DebateArt risks constructing an exclusionary framework that inadvertently perpetuates inequitable access to intellectual amplification, thereby undermining the very inclusivity it may purport to uphold.

Moreover, the ethical implications of banning AI-generated content must be contextualized within the historically iterative trajectory of technological augmentation, wherein each successive innovation has incrementally redefined the boundaries of authorship, originality, and participatory legitimacy. To categorically reject AI as a valid component of content creation is to engage in a form of technological exceptionalism that disregards the continuum of assistive tools that have long been normalized within knowledge production processes. This creates a paradoxical tension between the aspiration for authentic human discourse and the reality that such discourse has always been scaffolded by external mechanisms, thus rendering the moral distinction both ambiguous and arguably untenable when subjected to rigorous analytical scrutiny.

Finally, such a ban generates a potentially deleterious chilling effect on the cultivation of intellectual curiosity and exploratory engagement, as users may become disincentivized from leveraging emergent tools that could otherwise enhance their capacity for critical reasoning, synthesis, and communicative clarity. Ethical discourse frameworks should prioritize outcome-oriented evaluative criteria—such as coherence, relevance, and constructive contribution—over rigid procedural constraints regarding the modalities of content generation. In doing so, DebateArt would not only align itself with forward-looking principles of adaptive inclusivity but also position itself as a resilient and future-compatible platform within an increasingly AI-integrated communicative landscape.