Savant wrote:
I mean a few states tried literacy tests but I think universal suffrage is the better way to go.
That could never work, it means black people and LGBTQ can vote, get real.
Letting them vote means you hate America.
Savant wrote:
I mean a few states tried literacy tests but I think universal suffrage is the better way to go.
That could never work, it means black people and LGBTQ can vote, get real.
Letting them vote means you hate America.
SatanLucy wrote:
I don't know about "any circumstances". let's not forget that last year, way back when you were from Korea, you supported a woman's right to choose.
So? I can say things I dont believe in.
No shit, you are a random post generator.
Pointless.
SatanLucy wrote:
I don't support abortion under any circumstances other than certain death anyway.
I don't know about "any circumstances". let's not forget that last year, way back when you were from Korea, you supported a woman's right to choose.
SkepticalOne wrote:
Title should be "Do bans reduce abortions? Autocorrect can kiss my ask. 😉
Yeah, autocorrect doesn't work on the title, and it can kiss my ass too.
At times it can be my worst enema.
If I had a girlfriend, I would trust her more if she was insulting me all the time. If she was complimenting me, I would have to assume she is pretending and lying.
With your girlfriends, it best not to look below the surface.
Double_R wrote:
He'd do much better as a Republican
The overt and blatant hypocrisy around him has always been remarkable, even for the same party who held a supreme court seat open for a year cause you know, election year, only to fill a seat of their own in the final weeks of the next cycle literally after some votes had already been cast.
…and then they put a rapist on the Supreme Court. Trump can politicize anything into something unrecognizable from what was before the Trump era.
I agree with most everything you are saying, but unfortunately, in this post Trump era, it just doesn't apply to the way most voters think anymore, if you can even call it "thinking"
Democrats do have higher standards, that's not disputable, and Planter's scandals wouldn't have mattered one bit if he were a republican, that's not disputable either, but I still find the ease with which democrats and the mainstream media were willing to treat his scandals as disqualifying to be infuriating.
I don’t think they had a choice, Maine is one of nine Senator races that matter, so they will be run on national money and will be scrutinized on a national basis, this race has much more profound implications than just what happens in Maine. The Democratic party couldn’t make him stand down, all they could really do is refuse to support him (which disappears the requisite money). Supporting him or not in Maine will be seen as morally defining the Democratic party nationally.
Democrats couldn’t express disapproval of the corruption, sexual infidelities, and Fascist tendencies of the Republicans while supporting Platner, keeping Platner would be hypocritical and probably have made them lose a lot of votes they currently have because of voter disapproval. I'm afraid Platner would have a terrible effect on Democrats nationally by weakening the appearance of Democratic moral identity. Perception is reality in politics.
I love your term “whataboutism”, it’s one thing to look at Trump’s sexual deviances and say "whatabout Biden, he smelled a woman’s hair", it’s completely different to give them whatabout Platner to work with, that would give their ridiculous whataboutism some real substance. You correctly said Democrat’s higher standards are not disputable, supporting Platner certainly makes it more disputable.
This last rape allegation is in my view the first one I would actually call serious, and even then I think it pales in comparison to most SA allegations.
I think it is the most serious too, but they all weaken the Democrat’s ability to condemn the indiscretions of the opposition. Dems lost Al Frankin because of a funny photograph from before he even got into politics, back when he was a comedian, our standards are clearly much higher, and I’d think supporting Platner would damage the party’s image and harm their chances nationally.
The Nazi tattoo thing was certainly bothersome, but when the candidate unmistakably denounces anything they stood for and are actively fighting back against those very forces, it's pretty ridiculous to dwell on that, especially if you are even a little sympathetic to the president who had galvanized white supremacists nationwide to march into the streets with their Nazi flags.
I think it’s good that he denounced what they stood for too, but is it sincere or is it politically expedient, I’m not sure and I don’t think the undecideds and independents can be sure either. Even if his story is true, I think getting a permanent tattoo without knowing what it represents shows a lack of responsibility that should probably be disqualifying, I don’t think “I’m not a fascist, I’m just an idiot” is a very good response actually. Again, Democrats lose the ability to run against the Republican’s authoritarian tendencies by supporting a candidate with such affiliation, questionable or not.
The rest of the prior allegations are all about him treating his girlfriends poorly. From sexting other women while married to "being rough" by pulling one out of a car forcefully - the victim of which went on to say he never hit her. These are sadly not things that are unusual in relationships, not even close. Are they ideal for a Senate candidate? Of course not. Were they serious political scandals, especially at a time where we re-elected a man with 26 accusers, bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, bragged about barging into the dressing rooms of naked women because he's the owner and can get away with that, was held civilly liable for sexual assault, and oh yeah, has a 34 count felony conviction... No.
You are being rational, which is fine of course, I do it from time to time myself, but unfortunately, it’s not how most people vote anymore, now it’s about emotions, about negatively characterizing the opposition, and about Tribalism rather than reason. I’m working my ass off to pull off another miracle to get Jon Ossoff reelected, Ossoff is squeaky clean and his Republican opponent has lots of scandal baggage, among others, there's ethics issues regarding tax dollars, a rape victim smear, and ties to white nationalists, some very Platnery things. It’s going to be close, and I think the party supporting Platner could just give them enough whataboutism to tip the scale to Mike Collins in Georgia, same with Paxton in Texas. (Here’s a bit of trivia that is very telling: In the last election, in their campaign ads the Republicans used AI to make Jon Ossoff’s nose bigger; to make him look "more Jewish", that’s the kind of thing we are dealing with now.)
But the world treated them like they were, because that's how it always works. Democrats always have to be the adults in the room. Democrats always have to show you they deserve your vote. Trump and the republicans, they get your vote by default. That's how it works.
I’ll never understand that, but I think it has to do with it being about a culture war instead of issues, and about “owning the libs” instead of governing. They will be glad to elect a felon with sexual assault issues and authoritarian tendencies if it triggers Democratic outrage. They aren’t voting for these candidates as much as they are voting against the Democrats, lower standards are a response to Democrats higher standards, racism and LGBTQ hatred is a response to Democratic tolerance. I think even crapping all over the Constitution and denial of our foundational democratic process are accepted because of how much it causes outrage in the opposition. I doubt this is all of it, but I think it’s a lot of it.
My other explanatory theory is that we are trapped in a Fellini movie and shouldn’t even try to understand it rationally. let's just hope we wake up tomorrow morning and we are back in the real world saying, “OMG, that was a very disturbing nightmare”.
Trump showed support of the Knicks and they lost, he showed support of US soccer team and they lost, let's just hope this portends what is going to happen in the Midterms.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Who eats oysters anyway.
I once watched a TV programme where some bloke ate 180 of the horrible slimy things.
Tell people that snot is cool and trendy and they'd suck it out of your nose.
WTF? Damn man, I know Platner owns an oyster company but still, remind me to never bring up oysters around you again.
SatanLucy wrote:
Do you think that trump's invasion of Japan is justified?
Thinking that Trump invaded Japan is just stupid.
SatanLucy wrote:
I condemn this unprovoked aggression against Islamic Republic of Japan.
https://youtu.be/i7t2edbwAlQ?si=W5uIVvgjkqPkesqo
Yeah, so he misspoke, meant to say Iran instead of Japan, he's suffering from cognitive decline, never makes sense,
I will have you know that Islamic Republic of Japan did no such thing.
I'll have you know there is no such thing as the Islamic Republic of Japan
Stand with Islamic Republic of Japan!!!
How about you can stand with the Islamic Republic of Japan, and the rest will just be content to know a verbal faux pas doesn't bring a country into existence.
The real reason Trump went to war, so Don Jr, and Eric can make a killing in the Prediction Market.
You are playing the victim, what a surprise,
Does Graham Platner think he's a Republican or what?
Rape and neo-Nazi, those are considered qualifying attributes with Republicans, if you add pedophile, they might even elect him President.
In the Democratic party those things are disqualifying, he needs to step down, and then do the right thing and become a Republican.
He'd do much better as a Republican, with rape and neo-Nazi on his resume, Trump wight even make him a Supreme Court Justice.
SatanLucy wrote:
No, I said you'd vote for him because he's a pedophile, it was RemyBrown that votes for him because he's a rapist, pay attention.
I thought those two were same things according to you?
Why can't people be consistent in their bullshit...
You made that up of course, I would never say something so stupid. that's your job.
SatanLucy wrote:
Also, Biden likes to smell young girls and pinch their nipples, so you are still not really explaining why would I vote for Trump over Biden.
I'd rather try to teach my dog to play chess, at least there is some chance of comprehension,
No, I said you'd vote for him because he's a pedophile, it was RemyBrown that votes for him because he's a rapist, pay attention.
Shoresy wrote:
I was never American, and you stopped being an American long ago. People of the world claim your allegiance, and your country no longer exists.
I thought you were from Florida, the rest of the country wishes it wasn't, but unfortunately, Florida is actually in America.
linate wrote:
with someone like trump, even if it was proven beyond doubt he was a rapist I doubt it would change polling too much. I think both parties kinda assume he's a perverted deviant already. I dont even know how much the Epstein stuff would take him down if the claims were better proven.
He'd probably pick up a vote from SataLucy, I don't believe for a second SatanLucy is from Bosnia, probably Indiana, maybe West Virginia.
He got RemyBrown's vote when he raped E. Jean Carroll.
Shoresy wrote:
From one non-American to another non-American, I got what you meant.
Look, Trump made is all ashamed to be Americans, but you can't just deny it, man up and admit you are American just like you were last year. Look at the bright side, Trump could choke on a Big Mac and die.
BTW, last year you were getting married, did you? You disappeared for a while, then you came back with a new name and a new nationality, is that because you tied the knot? That's not how it works, if you marry a Canadian that doesn't make you Canadian, I married a woman from South Dakota, that doesn't mean I'm from South Dakota.
Shoresy wrote:
I noticed you said "people of"...before making the laundry list.
What I said was "people of color", I forgot that's a term Trumpers don't know, allow me to translate for MAGA folks, it means darkies, vermin, coons, or the N-word.
Sorry to confuse you.
linate wrote:
They would rather have broad based prosperity than prosperity by a select few who can achieve it right? Assuming thats the case why do you focus so much on outliers and rich people, why dont you focus on policies that promote broad based prosperity?
If they dont want broad based prosperity why not?
Oh please, the Republican party is now the party of Trump, broad based prosperity would be bipartisan prosperity. Governing for all the people is a thing of the past, it’s all about culture war now, it’s “us/them” thinking, prosperity for “them” would be considered failure. The agenda is to dominate, punish, and disenfranchise the opposition. Broad based policy initiatives have been replaced by a siege mentality, fear mongering, and attack politics.
"Broad based prosperity" would include prosperity for people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ, and the dreaded “libs” who are tolerant of those groups. The Trump movement see’s them as the enemy and prosperity for “them” would mean defeat. They see it as a zero-sum game, they want to win, and they want the “others” to lose.
SkepticalOne wrote:
I think you could characterize humanity as an animal that uses language, and I suppose a puerile contrarian would say “Except that humanity includes people that can’t talk”, but it would just be pointless.
Given that up to a quarter of humanity are religiously unaffiliated and up to 10% of humanity have no spiritual beliefs, it's not a small thing to gloss over when characterizing humanity.
OK, OK, my bad, I said “vast majority” when it’s only 90%, I’m sorry I upset you.
In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.
Well that's certainly a novel definition, I wonder why it’s a word in the first place then. If there are only two categories, why even name a third category?
Except this is not a novel definition. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge rather than a statement of belief. The word itself is derived from greek 'a' and 'gnosis' meaning 'without knowledge'. Ie. agnosticism isnt a third position, it is in a category on its own.
OK, so you are saying atheism is a statement of belief.
Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.
You seem to want to make this conversation all about words, do you even remember what it is supposed to be about? If you do, that would be what we call context.
The context is you claiming human cultures 'always' having a spiritual component means humanity has a built-in spiritual element. I am arguing against this in two ways:
Yeah, except for that’s not what I said.
Let’s debate the difference between “innate”, “predisposed”, and “built-in” now.
1. large groups of humans dont subscribe to the religion or the supernatural.
2. The desire to fit in and the impact a social group can have on personal views should not be overlooked, especially when attempting to describe an epistimological snapshot of the human brain a priori.
You can’t say humans have eyesight because there are blind people
You can’t say people have two legs because there are people with one leg
You can’t say the sky is blue because there’s that whole nighttime thing.
You can’t say epistemological is spelled that way because there are people who spell it epistimological.
You can’t say SkepticalOne is a puerile contrarian because, hmmm, well, OK, you can say SkepticalOne is a puerile contrarian.
I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.
OK, so you don’t get the whole context thing, got it.
45% of women will be the victim of sexual assault, so men win the evil contest by a 20% margin.
25% of girls and 5% of boys will experience child sexual abuse before reaching adulthood, so pedophiles get the prize for "most evil".
FLRW wrote:
Ok,ok, Stephen Hawking didn't think that way.
Allow me to explain the difference between doesn't and didn't; doesn't is current tense, didn't is past tense.
SkepticalOne wrote:
It's not an argument from popularity, it's simply a matter of thinking that the default state would be the state that humanity has always been found in
Except that humanity includes non-belief.
I think you could characterize humanity as an animal that uses language, and I suppose a puerile contrarian would say “Except that humanity includes people that can’t talk”, but it would just be pointless.
If you were thinking the default state is a matter of the "a priori" state, the state of a person as they are born, then I think you are still wrong, that would be agnosticism, wouldn't it?
In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.
Well that's certainly a novel definition, I wonder why it’s a word in the first place then. If there are only two categories, why even name a third category?
I think it hinders rational discussion when you just make up your own definition of words, I’m sure you will disagree, but I think rational discussion requires people to be speaking the same language. But then again, I think hindering rational discussion is the whole point of puerile contrarianism, which is why I think it’s pointless
Cognitive scientists generally concur that our brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs, so maybe that is the default state..
Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.
You seem to want to make this conversation all about words, do you even remember what it is supposed to be about? If you do, that would be what we call context.
I also think context is important to rational discussion.
The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.
FYI, I'm not a Christian, at least most Christians tell me that, so you don't really have to have the same visceral reaction to everything I say, your emotions are not conducive to rational discussion.
I don't know who it was that made you so angry with Christianity, but I know it wasn't me.
I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.
OK, so you don’t get the whole context thing, got it.
You know that Stephen Hawking doesn't think that way
Well, being dead and all, I know that Stephen Hawking doesn't think any way.
but Rev Jim Bakker definitely does.
Jim Bakker doesn't know what a cognitive scientist is.
SkepticalOne wrote:
Let us try one more time. I do hope you engage this time.
LOL, I get it, you are programmed to say this every time I ring the bell.
Your explanation doesnt address the problem. You are arguing all cultures believe in a spiritual realm therefore spiritual humanity is the default. This is an argument from popularity.
It's not an argument from popularity, it's simply a matter of thinking that the default state would be the state that humanity has always been found in, if such beliefs are innate, then I think that would be the default state.
If you were thinking the default state is a matter of the "a priori" state, the state of a person as they are born, then I think you are still wrong, that would be agnosticism, wouldn't it?
Cognitive scientists generally concur that our brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs, so maybe that is the default state..
The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.
FYI, I'm not a Christian, at least most Christians tell me that, so you don't really have to have the same visceral reaction to everything I say, your emotions are not conducive to rational discussion.
I don't know who it was that made you so angry with Christianity, but I know it wasn't me.
I have to say, I am impressed you had six paragraphs and only one sentence was (mostly) relevant to the discussion. Your ad hom and red herring game are on point!
I explained why my post went so far over your head, and you just automatically repeat your inane misunderstanding.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
fauxlaw wrote:
I'm not sorry you are, after all, easy to ignore. Biden sure was. Too bad you can't do the same about Trump
Trump is President, he's destroying the economy, ruining America's reputation as a world leader, using his position to rob the country, defacing the White House, working to discredit our democratic system, and tear down the Constitution to move toward fascism and dictatorship, and you think we should just ignore him? You are like a character in a Fellini movie, only more absurd.
Obama hasn't been in office in almost 10 years, and you are still obsessed, he lives rent free in your head, too bad you can't ignore Obama.
We had a black president over a decade ago and you are still traumatized by that, it's time to quit obsessing and just get over it. You've had your White Supremacist President now; it's time to quit being such a whiney baby about Obama.
