And you've not acknowledged your framing is disingenuous.
And you've not acknowledged your framing is disingenuous.
Of course he did, but it's constitutional.
Your position is that banning some, not all, media outlets access is constitutional?
Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit, 1977)
The judge never ordered access, and Sherrill never got access after the case was won.
This case was about the denial of due process (not the restoration of credentials), and Sherrill won the case. This precedent directly goes against Trump's actions.
To be clear, Sherrill was an individual reporter applying for credentials who was denied. This is not comparable to entire media outlets having their credentials abruptly revoked after already successfully passing the vetting process.
Do you think a judge can compel a US President and force him to share his personal space with all 340 million people?
It is not about 340 million people. It is about 3 media outlets being banned from the White House press pool without due process on an unconstitutional rationalization.
It's an honest question:if banning reporters from his home is unconstitutional, what is the remedy?
"Home" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The White House has many functions - it’s an executive workspace, a communications hub, a historic site, and a private residence.
More to the point, press briefings don't happen in the living quarters; they take place in a dedicated, specialized briefing room. It’s misleading to frame the ban as some type of 'intrusion into the president's private home' - he doesn't live in the press room.
Do you deny Trump banned these media organizations because of stories they have published?
The people’s house” is ceremonial language, not a press-pass entitlement.
This is a red herring.
Do you deny Trump banned these media organizations because of stories they have published?
It is the people's house. The National Parks Service manages it. Trump, like all presidents, is a temporary resident. You can say it is his residence, you can not intimate he owns it.
If you want to argue semantics, at least learn the difference between ownership and a security perimeter.
1. Its the people house, not the president's.
2. These outfits were banned because of content Trump disagrees with.
I expect a judge to rule POTUS is violating the 1st amendment of the Constitution because he is.
RemyBrown wrote:
Opposition to abortion
This is viewed as sexism.
Traditional Marriage
This is viewed as Homophobia.
The Party of Law and Order
... police state.
Public role of religion
... theocracy.
I generally disagree with what Conservatives mean when they say these things, but thats totally fine. That leaves plenty of room for discussion.
Generally is 50%<X<100%. It's just 100% for you.
Is this the part where you tell me what I believe? I mean, you're not doing a very good job of it, but I admit it saves a lot of time if you carry the entire conversation by yourself.
This is literally the government attempting to restrict speech about the government - the thing the 1st amendment is meant to protect against. The lawsuits have already begun. Hopefully, SCOTUS can once again discard its bias for Trump and protect America.
In my view, sincere advocacy is never ragebait. Ragebait is an intentional attempt to cause outrage. Conservative views that are not ragebait include (but are not limited to):
Opposition to abortion
Traditional Marriage
The Party of Law and Order
Public role of religion
I generally disagree with what Conservatives mean when they say these things, but thats totally fine. That leaves plenty of room for discussion.
If it isn’t verifiable, it isn’t evidence as far as science is concerned.
That is true. However, the post I responded to said nothing of scientific evidence. It referred to 'proof' which is not scientific, but philosophical.
"Yes, there is currently no proof that consciousness exists after death, but there no proof that consciousness exists before death either."
I think there is much more evidence to the contrary, but I’ll need to do a pretty long response to explain it, no time right now, I’ll need to come back later to argue it.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
You don’t want to have a formal debate about it, do you?
I find this subject fascinating. I'm not opposed to a debate if we can hammer out an agreeable resolution. I would also need to refresh/catch-up my understanding of the subject.
Just because you don’t say “abracadabra” when you invoke the miraculous power of the word “emergent”, doesn’t mean it isn’t magic.
I really wonder how you are defining "magic". Is it something akin to 'ignorance'?
'End of Petroleum is coming' (with current technology and techniques). Technologies and techniques changed. Hey, but the problem still exists. Its just that the can has been kicked down the road a little.
'Crisis of overpopulation' (with current technology and techniques). Technologies and techniques change. The problem still exists, but the can has been kicked down the road a little.
'Climate change' (with current technologies and techniques). Technologies and techniques change. The problem still exists, but the can has been kicked down the road a little.
The crises remain on the horizon.
True, but it is even more likely you could have children take a different ideological path.
I was responding to your question “Does 'Cogito Ergo sum' mean nothing to you!?” which is the archetypal quote of Descartes, the OG "substance dualist". So yeah, substance dualism is what that quote means to me.
That's fair.
To be clear, you stated there was no evidence for consciousness, and 'Cogito ergo sum' is direct evidence of consciousness everyone has. That is the context I asked the question.
By “emergent property”, you mean magic, right?
No, not at all. I think there is good evidence to accept consciousness and the brain are irrevocably tied together. 'Magic' would be how a non-material mind works with a physical body.
Neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles and philosopher of science Karl Popper have both referred to emergentism as “promissory materialism”, Sir John Eccles stated, “Promissory materialism is a superstition without a rational foundation.
You would think they would have been familiar with emergent properties back in 1977. I was young, but I distinctly remember water being wet back then. 🤔
That sounds like a discussion that should involve you and Massachusetts (not me).
Fwiw, I'm opposed to capital punishment - it makes no sense that we should use a punishment that mirrors the crime.
I started on DDO too.
Welcome!
Massachusetts has no capital punishment, so, even if she was perfectly sane, the death penalty is not an option.
No comment should be labeled as offensive. All currently offensive comments should be legal.
Perhaps you should build a debate around this premise. 🤔
The "offensive" label on your account does not have anything to do with my, or any one person's, sensibilities. It is a label applied on behalf of the community by stewards.
RemyBrown wrote:
Where is the offensive stuff I've posted?
Is it your position you've never posted offensive material or are you having trouble locating it? 🙃
Christian Nationalism is political ideology that asserts the US government is defined by Christianity and it should actively preserve and promote it. The Constitution is a secular document that makes no mention of any specific religion and explicitly rejects religious privilege within the 1st amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [...]"
Christian Nationalism and the Constitution of the United States are at odds, but the latter has authority being the law of the Land. Christian Nationalism rejects the constitutional principle of a secular state and is fundamentally at odds with core American democratic principles.
WTF, so you searched soft?
Thanks for that mental image. 
Savant wrote:
What you listed is the bannable stuff (aside from defending stuff in the abstract), not the offensive stuff.
/end thread
Consciousness doesn’t have any shared characteristics with the physical word and consequently, there is no proof it exists, science can’t even explain how it interacts with physical reality.
It seems you are referencing an issue exclusive to substance dualism to argue consciousness is beyond science. Most scientists and philosophers accept consciousness as an emergent property of the physical brain and therefore dont think a non-physical answer is required. It is true consciousness cannot be directly observed, but that doesnt mean it cannot be indirectly observed. (Eg. First person observation combined with data via instrumentation). Consciousness is within the domain of science.
Yes, there is currently no proof that consciousness exists after death, but there no proof that consciousness exists before death either.
Does 'Cogito Ergo sum' mean nothing to you!? 😀
If ever I find myself in your part of the workd, I'll take you up on that.
True, but the drive is much shorter.
What is the comparison?
RemyBrown wrote:
Their disagreements don't have a good rationale.
Only that 'sovereign state' rationale. Doesn't the US use that same BS claim?! Crazy.
If they don't want to join, then tariff the SHIT out of them!
Right! We should tarrif them until we cant take it anymore. Brilliant.
I know a great place in Fishguard...Do you know where that is?
Wales, eh? It's quite the commute for me. Perhaps, you would consider a place in Ft Worth? 🤣