Debby wrote:
The Muslim world is waiting to develop nuclear weapons and be in the majority.
I guess we're not counting Pakistan's nuclear weapons?
Debby wrote:
The Muslim world is waiting to develop nuclear weapons and be in the majority.
I guess we're not counting Pakistan's nuclear weapons?
The US prison system does not have an effective rehabilitation program. Using the US system as an argument against rehabilitation doesnt work. We all agree its not working in the US not because rehab doesnt work, but because that isnt a serious priority in the US. I mean, we have for-profit prisons - that should tell you everything you need to know about US prisoner rehabilitation aspirations.
I'm not sure who is saying 'the Jews control the US govt". Is that an Elon thing?
I think Israel sees a powerful ally. American fundamentalists...er, I mean, the Republican party sees Israel as the key to fulfilling eschatological prerequisites for the return of Jesus.
To the world and Palestinians the word is genocide
...many Americans too.
Humiliation as a punishment disregards human dignity, causes psychological trauma (emotional distress, deep depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation), and undermines rehabilitation. This is not less harsh.
I'm aware. Did you mean to tag me?
Alex Pretti kicking an established government car and violently grabbing an established law authority.
Next you'll be arguing he was attempting to overthrow the government like Dear Leader. #Goodthink
Technically, he was killed before he could go to trial as an actual insurrectionist.
You mispelled murdered.
I'd take Spirit Airlines to Mars before signing up with Musk.
Insurrection: an organized, usually violent revolt or uprising by a group of people against an established government or civil authority.
What's missing?
Fascinating. I learned something new. Thank you.
yeah I had a feeling one of you would jump to correct me before I posted that.
And yet, you posted the disinformation anyway.
So go ahead and tell me, how many of them discharged their firearms?
Why? Use of firearms is not required for something to be considered an insurrection. Plus, there were firearms AND other weapons which were used.
"Roughly 174 of those 608 were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or otherwise causing serious injury to an officer."
[LINK]
when I was first taught the principle by Aristarchus [3rd century BCE],
Wow! Aristarchus was your teacher? You are a bit older than I imagined...
Nice try, but that doesnt contradict heliocentricity as it is commonly understood.
In fact, no, the rioters were NOT guilty of insurrection purely based on there being no convictions for insurrection in
OJ wasnt convicted of murder either. By your logic, he didn't do it in spite of the de facto confession his book "If I did it" represented and being found civilally liable for the deaths.
That is some weak rationale.
An insurrection is a violent uprising by a group of people against their own government. That happened on Jan 6. The definition of insurrection does not include the word "conviction".
Mag1cman wrote:
Worlds first unarmed insurrection let’s gooooooo
It is easily confirmed the rioters had firearms and other weapons:
"However, court records show, opens new tab at least five cases where carrying or possessing a firearm was part of the indictment. A summary, opens new tab of the cases by the Justice Department as of Jan. 3 said 180 defendants were charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon, which includes firearms and other types of weapons."
[Link]
In the 19th century, science was still holding to the erroneous concept of heliocentricity
I was not aware we had moved past heliocentricity.
This is either incorrect or misleading. The fact that there are more than 2 genders in the rainbow dictionary implies a Hogwarts Sorting Hat ceremony.
The only gender choice I am aware of is 'attack helicopter' as claimed (tongue firmly in cheek) by jokesters.
Your offered definition by the LofM is a very recent change there, as you noted, and I prefer their definition that agrees with their longer-active definition.
Your objection is purely semantic. You are cherry picking an older definition from the Library of Medicine because of nothing more than personal preference. Do you reject the provisional nature of science?
In fact, the root of "gender" is not even related to biology or sociology [...]
It seems you might. Why appeal to the LofM if you toss it out when it doesnt say what you want? I guess that question answers itself.
gender, for 99.99999993% of us is XX or XY [according to the Library of Medicine].
You are confusing gender and sex. Chromosomes and sex are related. According to your own source, the Library of Medicine 2026, gender identity is:
"A person's concept of self as being male and masculine or female and feminine, or ambivalent, based in part on physical characteristics, parental responses, and psychological and social pressures. It is the internal experience of gender role." [Link]
You're going to have to define what you mean by "healthcare" since some on the left claim gender choice is healthcare.
What is gender choice? As I understand it, gender identity is a core part of who a person is. It might be recognized, but not chosen. Are you opposed to gender-affirming care?
Healthcare: efforts made to maintain, restore, or promote someone's physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially when performed by trained and licensed professionals
These seem even more difficult than finding a shooter who's willing to die.
Maybe, maybe not. This is another assumption.
A shooter naive enough not to realize he'd be shot probably isn't smart enough to help carry out a scheme like this.
High emotion undermines rationality. Thomas Crooks was not in a good place emotionally.
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.
Its not about logistics, but risk. The conspiracy to take out a competitor must necessarily be larger making the risk greater and less tempting.
The one people accused of being faked was the first one.
Okay, but the point stands. Why must we assume the other attempts were faked?
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.
Again, 3 or 4 people minimum. Trump doesnt have to be involved. IMO, his involvement is detrimental to success.
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.
Trump had a lot of support. If he went away right before an election, the RNC struggles. Maybe a case could be made for how the RNC capitalizes on outrage, but I remain unconvinced.
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.
Maybe. I think the Secret Service is highly competent. This may be the strongest argument against.
Lump sums of cash is not going to fix the problem. It is a band-aid to fix cancer. Real reparations need to address the ongoing issues.
Im not necessarily on-board with the notion that this assassination was faked, but I dont think one need buy into all of these assumptions to accept it.
(a) Trump found a shooter who was willing to die for a fake assassination attempt
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.
(b) For some reason, Trump didn't hire someone to kill Joe Biden or Kamala Harris
3. Fake assassination and real assassination are not equivalent crimes.
(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.
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?
(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.
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.
6. Trump doesnt need to be the planner or even in-the-know. That is an unnecessary assumption.
(e) The Secret Service was either in on it or didn't figure out the whole thing was fake
7. Someone in the Secret Service would need to run interference.
What the fuck am I supposed to respond to that?
Not everything is worthy of a response... kudos to you for trying though.
What kind of reparations are we talking about?
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. That would be a decent start. 😉
As for Muslims? They havent collectively wronged the US and have no legacy of oppression against any specific group of Americans. 9/11 was terrorists which is not synonymous with Muslims.
SatanLucy wrote:
I always thought that black people should get reparations. Even after slavery ended, they were pretty much pushed in poor areas and under bad circumstances.
For this, I recommend reading two short books:
Native Son
and
Black Boy
They are both by Richard Wright. They are probably one of most amazing books I ever read on systematic racism.
As for Muslims paying reparations for 9/11, well, surely USA must first pay reparations to Vietnam and about 70 other countries it invaded in past 70 years.
This.There is no comparison between the two.
if her DNA indicates XY chromosomes, she is not a biological woman, in spite of appearance.
You have a very simplistic definition of sex, and folks like Jackie Blakenship demonstrate the incoherence of it. You've taken the position a former Mrs. America is a man in spite of a completely natural body with a vagina and breasts. In actuality, biological sex isnt JUST chromosomes - that is an incomplete understanding. Bioligical sex is determined by chromosomes, hormones, organs, external genitalia, etc.
Yes, DNA defines exactly what a human woman is.
Except when it doesn't. Jackie Blakenship (former Mrs America) has XY chromosomes.
By standard expected DNA process, yes, sex is binary.
"Expected" is an arbitrary qualification and excludes the full breadth of humanity...as seen above.
No, a woman is defined by DNA in 99.99999993% of humanity. The small percentage, called by science [once upon a time] as "intersex," express additional chromosomes beyond XX and XY, number, as tested, less than 600 individuals worldwide, as best as can be estimated [and it is absolutely identifiable if tested].
So you're saying sex is not binary? Agreed. Your nimber are whack though. The lowest estimate of intersex I've seen is .018% which equates to ~1.5 million people.