Amarel's Waterfall
You are cherry-picking statistics and abusing the meaning of words, which are the common tactics of sociopaths.
Haha you're just like Dana with the minor difference that she sticks to "rapist" while you mix it up a little. Two peas in a pod haha.
Government subsidized student loan programs increased demand for higher education and provided guaranteed payments to colleges which removed market incentives for improvement. Increased demand drove up costs. Quality remained steady in the best circumstances. But more broadly, quality decreased to accommodate paying customers who cannot actually consume the higher quality product.
A sizable proportion of Americans can never have enough guns
I have the same concerns. But maybe, with an aggressive government redistribution plan, we can solve the issues of gun ownership inequity.
I see you're also concerned about shooting victim inequity. I suppose a government program to redistribute this outcome could also be tried, though I expect it would be less popular. I wouldn't personally support it.
Does the government need to round up all the drugs to make selling drugs against the law?
True. If there was a war on guns it would be about as effective as the war on drugs. Well, even less so because a violation of the constitution would drive demand for guns.
You know who gun manufacturers should be paying? The Democrats. Every time they start to murmur about gun restrictions, gun shops can't keep guns or ammo on the shelves.
I think we have plenty of guns. What we need is equity in gun distribution. As it is, the majority of the guns are in the hands of a relatively few greedy gun enthusiasts.
What we need is a gun ban on more than 1 of the same kind of assault rifle. If you have too many guns, you have to give them to underprivileged, lgbtq, or other populations that are under represented among gun owners.
I've never claimed to be neutral you dumb shit. Pretty typical. "Everything Amarel says is a lie and all his words are dishonest. Therefore I will decide whatever I want him to be saying to justify my inane dribble and pretend it qualifies as a response to what I've decided he said. If he's in a conversation that is beyond my comprehension or vocabulary, I'll just call him dumb."
Irish isn't a race smart one. It's a collection of smelly fisherman and sheep fuckers.
No one here talks about my guns more than you. You're the only one who talks about me being a tough guy. Oh, and the truck attack in Nice killed more than our deadliest mass shooting. The factor is the I'll hatred smart one.
The rest of us learned in elementary not to be mean to our crushes. Alright lass, you bored be again. So long.
...Unless you have something interesting to say about the inferiority of Irish Whiskey to the far superior Scotch.
The Republic of Ireland Act was in 1949. That's four years after Ireland mourned the loss of Hitler.
If you were never under threat, it's because you would happily join whomever won. That's some serious conviction about Nazism there. Run that flag high. Oh, and sorry for your loss.
Did you know Al is a gun owner? I only mention it because I know where you live the thought of an American gun owner makes a wee lass cry.
I didn't know you guys actually flew a swastika AFTER Hitler died. The threat was GONE! Thank the UK.
I guess if Ireland could nut up we know what side they would have been on. Basically your country stayed neutral because they couldn't win for the axis with UK basically owning them.
I wasn't born yet is an excuse for your country huh? Noted.
50,000 were from the bitch Ireland. 70,000 were from UK Ireland.
And yes, the US only got into the war after we were attacked, but Ireland did not a damn thing even after they were attacked. They just made bigger signs letting Hitler's planes know that it's Ireland and please don't bomb us anymore.
Right, from Ireland's brave fighting force, less than 5000 were brave or fighting. You can't get that 120,000 without counting Northern Ireland troops, which were the majority of that figure.
Don't worry, I'm sure there are plenty of Irish authored books for you to quote from to excuse how you stood by while the rest of the world stood up.
Even New Zealand fought in WWII.
If I were Irish, I wouldn't want to.talk about it either. A handful of Irish soldiers ditched their absent military and joined the fight with the Allies. Ireland punished them for it and they never saw a pardon until 2013.
You are really fixated on how many guns I own. Maybe I should have mentioned it more than that one time. One mentioned from me produces days worth of obsessive defensive posts from you.
Oh yeah, and I was providing an example of relatively few people owning more guns than the population. So yeah, I said how many guns I own, but I didn't tell you how tough I am. Your just conjuring a boogie man now lucky charms.
As for the racism, you specifically claimed that my slam on your irishness is because I only like wealthy white religious people...because your a fucking idiot. An idiot from a country that tore itself up like the middle east over religion. It's not my fault you guys were comfortable letting everyone else do all the work for you in WWII. I'm betting we were better off without you.
I only ever hear calls for respect for leaders when there is a leftist in power.
Fuck that. Public office by itself earns nothing but sharp criticism and mockery. Left right and center. None earn respect by winning a popularity contest.
With that said, she got her start in politics by fucking her way up the ladder. I think fucking for profit should be considered a right mind you. So I expect to see this admin do great things for expanding the legitimization of sex work.
"Mostly peaceful" was as inappropriate a characterization of riots throughout 2020, as it is in 2021.
Fistfights with cops is what we have come to expect from certain people who don't stereotypically support police. If the people with the blue line flags are now throwing down with police, then what support do police have left?
Dan Crenshaw has a podcast. He made a statement about what happened in a recent episode. I recommend you give a listen to the first 15 minutes or so.
If massive public figures like the president don't have a platform for mass communication, how can we hold them accountable for their words to the masses?
If you ensure all the fascists shut up, how do you know who the fascists are?
Liberalism used to mean an ideology based around the following principles:
He didn’t say “used to” liberals, he said liberals. It’s fair to assume he meant whatever Liberal means today, as opposed to the classical Liberal you’re describing.
Buddhism is a religion without a god. Depending on what definition one uses, there may be many such religions, though less recognized as such.
On the other side, various people have provided various perspectives on what they mean by “god”, and sometimes those perspectives do not align with formalized or sanctified teachings of any given religion. Spinoza comes to mind. He was excommunicated from Judaism and persecuted by Christians as an atheist, yet he was described a “god intoxicated man”.
convinced himself that writing in a formal style constitutes an acceptable substitute for a reasoned argument.
If my arguments are not sound, we wouldn’t know it from your responses which are never a refutation but always an insult.
Claiming anti-Semitism is a left wing phenomena is not a reasoned argument.
I merely re-stated the findings of an EU survey of European Jews. It shows that 21% of anti Semitic attacks were from left wingers while 13% were from right wingers. If you think that makes it a left wing phenomenon, then that your own conclusion.
You may also observe this in yourself when you’re new to a job. At first you don’t know anything and you know it. Then you get the hang of it and wish to do everything because now you expect you can. Over time you realize there’s still a lot to learn. In the end you can do all relevant tasks but it’s just your work, you don’t feel cocky and it’s nothing to ask for help.
Taxation without representation referred to the fact that the colonies had no representatives in parliament but were still subject to tax. Everyone in the US has reps in the senate and the house (except for the residents of Washington DC, ironically)
He simply believed that what is perceived as liberalism in America is/was not liberal enough.
What he said was that it wasn’t “truly” Liberal. It isn’t that it wasn’t Liberal enough, it wasn’t truly Liberal at all. Faux liberalism doesn’t fail to be Liberal enough.
He plays the “in real life” game. It’s a trap if you fall into the “in real life” counter to online posturing.
If a guy online says “I’ll beat your ass”, we all know it’s bullshit keyboard warriorism. But if you counter with “no, ill beat your ass first”, you’re playing the internet-tough guy game.
Let them be what they are without becoming them.
Like I said. The Constitution sets limits on how and when the government will deprive people of their life, Liberty, and property (pursuit of happiness). There is a Constitutional requirement for due process. And the government deprives people of these all the time.
Mark Judge made his statement under penalty of felony. Perjury is also a felony (remember? That’s what Bill Clinton did).
“A federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001, criminalizes material, intentional false statements made in any matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government, even if those statements are not under oath.“
That leaves Roe v Wade as settled law, and outside what he says is his purview of decision.
Not necessarily. As you said, he “he explicitly stated he uses Constitutional text and precedent to guide his determination of constitutionality.”
There is nothing in the Constitutional text about the “penumbras and emanations” that validates Roe v Wade. When text does not support precedent, a Constitutional conservative would overturn in favor of the text.
Mark this post in your memory as an example of your own soft hysteria.
Gay marriage isn’t going anywhere.
Border security is Constitutional and not anti-immigration.
Roe V Wade..yeah maybe that’s overturned since it has nothing at all to do with the Constitution. But that doesn’t mean abortion will be federally banned. They will remain just as available in California and just about equally unavailable in Georgia.
Except for the fact that we shouldn't have to defend ourselves against stronger humans in such a civilised world.
I would be interested to hear the armed muggers thoughts on the subject. In the off chance you ever get mugged, try to explain this to them.
Being against a given Amendment does not mean you are against the Constitution. Nor is it anti-Constitution to be in favor of amending it. The most recent Amendment was in 1992. Those involved successfully changed the Constitution. Where they anti-American? What about those who were against the 18th Amendment which outlawed drinking? Anti-American? No.
I agree that government should not be concerned with marriage as it currently stands. But your description of your roommate agreement is ideal. Parties make agreements and are honest. But this is often not the case even with roommates. Roommates will commonly take the others things upon separating and claim the ownership is there’s. This dispute is a civil matter, much like contract resolution and is settled either by lawsuit or private force. It often still represents a burden on our government’s legal system.
The nature of marriage is highly emotional. It is such that we’ve begun adding prenuptials just to strengthen the clarity of the contract and ensure emotions don’t rule the day upon separation. It’s easy with a roommate, not with a spouse. As such you will notice that my previous post is entirely concerned with the creation of a strong contract.
So you accuse me of saying something " direct " which you then admit I didn't say because it is a " direct " statement which I wouldn't make
It is very telling about the nature of this exchange, the fact that you believe that I claimed you said anything direct, and worse, you felt that this is an accusation.
When I said “There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable” you replied Abortion being one. Now I’m glad you finally accept the logical, scientifically derived position that a fetus is a human life. I’m going to let that sit for awhile, maybe it will germinate. But since you reverted and contradicted your position here in the very next sentence, I don’t have hope for further discussion. Stomping your foot and repeating yourself does not make a valid argument. Well child, I’ll let the more patient adults take it from here.
What you're basically saying...you continuously try to tell me what I'm saying
Hypocrisy doesn’t typically come in a single, neat run-on sentence like this.
by actually ignoring what I'm saying and re _ stating my case to fit your narrative
I’m not ignoring what you are saying. I understand that your position is that you “do not really care what way you want to define a fetus ,a woman's rights trump those of a fetus and to deny this is to deny a right as in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body”. You’ve said already that “A fetus is reliant on the mother for sustenance and the use of her body over which it has no right , so yes it’s fine to terminate”. The problem with your position is that it is an assertion that you cannot seem to support. You agree with the step by step A to B analysis of your position put forward by fgtorres. But you cannot be logically consistent in applying that analysis. It was like pulling teeth, but you finally admitted that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to end. For whatever reason you cannot see that the demands of a fetus on a mother continue long after it is born. Furthermore, you are incapable of stating why a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to end. You just reassert your belief and base it on nothing.
I’m always impressed when you make good arguments because I never expect much from you. One cannot expect much from a person who doubts that they experience doubt but is certain that they cannot be certain. I’ll throw this argument in with your growing list of childish, irrational positions.
At the minimum, there would need to be 2 witnesses to attest to the validity of the union and some form of arbitration to settle property matters in the event the union is disolved. These are exactly the kinds of functions government is supposed to serve.
please point out where I said these exact words because would that not be a very “ direct response “ if I had said it ?
It would be very direct, that’s why you didn’t say it.
A fetus is living. A fetus has human DNA. It’s human DNA is distinct from the DNA of its mother. Your skin cell is alive, but it is part of you. It has your DNA. It is not distinct from you.
There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable. I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill.
A fetus is reliant on the mother for sustenance and the use of her body over which it has no right , so yes it’s fine to terminate
By this logic, the government has no right to require parents to attend to the needs of their children as this compels parents to do certain things with their body. Your logic would serve to eliminate laws against neglect.
You refuse to use exact words or give direct responses. However, you did not deny the premises that a fetus has human DNA and is living. You simply added that “if born you’re a potential life brought to fruition”. This implies that a human life is not alive if unborn.
You can’t answer directly without contradicting one of these three premises.
When I speak of “ potential “ I’m still talking about unborn / born if born you’re a potential life brought to fruition
I must assume you agree that a fetus has human DNA. Though the fetus is also most certainly alive, your contention is that it actually isn’t alive until it’s born. If this is incorrect, I’m sure you’ll let me know.
Insofar as you won’t answer my question, you are avoiding it. To say that a thing is alive, and a thing has human DNA, and that these together make it a human life, is not begging the question. If you want to say that it is a potential human life, that’s fine. But then you must articulate what is potential about it. Is it the DNA or the life? If it is neither, then we are still talking about a human life. This matters because you must then articulate The conditions in which the taking of a human life is acceptable. If your argument is that a woman has the right to take actions which result in the taking of a human life, then you have to articulate why. Saying that she simply does is begging the question. But the point is that the answer to the question you’re avoiding matters. If it didn’t, you would have no issue with answering it.
So, is it potentially human DNA; or is it potentially alive?
Yes many insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving
They aren’t assuming. Their conclusion is based on premises. Their conclusion is because of other facts. Therefore the conclusion is neither assumed, nor is it begging the question. Why is a fetus a human life? Because it is known to be alive (so that’s one half of the question), and we now know that it’s genes are human. If it’s genes are human, and it’s alive, then it is either a human life, or human life requires more than being a living thing with a human genome. It is reasonable to think that a human life is a living thing with a human genome. What is a more reasonable definition then that?
I'm not sure Jolie can represent Republicans position. Liberals aren't typically called hypocrites when they own guns, but rather when they don't, they take an anti-gun position (which not all of them do), and their body guards are armed.
The flip side of this partisan character attack is the insinuation that right wingers want to arm terrorists, criminals, and the mentally deficient. I would say that this is at least as false as the notion that liberals want to take guns.
Which misrepresentation do you think is the least false? That liberals want to take guns, or that conservatives want to arm the insane?
Indeed, many liberals are gun owners and 2nd Amentment advocates. The problem is that many liberal representatives are not, and since it is not a primary concern of gun owning liberals, representatives occasionally express anti-gun rhetoric without reprimand from the gun owning liberals they represent.
I know someone who was protesting in California. When he saw anarchists vandalizing a Starbucks he started recording and told them they are part of the problem. They pepper sprayed him, kicked the shit out of him, and told him he is part of the white problem.
Your confusion here is based on semantics and was resolved with the creation of the word "qualia". It was my mistake for not clarifying this earlier than I did. But since I have already clarified this confusion previously, your mistake was in asking your philosopher friends the wrong question before presenting their response here.
You deny that to doubt experience, one must experience doubt. The only way for you to do this is do claim outright that experience doesn't exist. You assert an equally faith based claim that qualia does not exist.
Tell me how one can deny the existence of experience (thus experiencing denial) without being dishonest or blindly faithful.
Because there is no knowledge that prevents you from believing the wrong things.
This may be the crux of your misunderstanding. Very early on, you claimed that the the existence of illusions destroys my position. You still fail to see that I can doubt what I experience, but not the fact that I experience, by the nature of experience itself.
But unless you have knowledge of enough mathematics, your claim might as well be entirely wrong
Most of what you assert is baseless. You don't need to understand the whole of geometry to understand that a square peg won't fit in the round hole.
As to the specific example, I'll need to know which rules are the most involved in solving it to be able to tell exactly which changes would yield a solution otherwise. But such things can exist.
This is like saying "I can't say why you are wrong, but I am certain you are". You might as well concede to reason.
I have made a whole claim about a subject that we may only have partial knowledge concerning. You can know that 2+2=4, at understand the truth of it, without knowing the Pythagorean theorem. So when I say that 2+2=4 and to prove me wrong you must only show an instance wherein 2+2=/=4, it is an invalid argument to claim that I must understand the whole of mathematics lest my “partial claim” be rendered meaningless. Rather than attempting a logical refutation, you have avoided.
Or, of course, make you explain the nature of this experience so that it can be shown to be an unnecessary explanation
One need not explain the nature of a thing in its entirety to begin to understand a thing, something you seem stubborn about. Do you suppose everyone fell off mountains and buildings for lack of an explanation of the nature of gravity? A things nature need not be fully discovered for the truth of that which is partially discovered to be understood. Thus, the only way to reasonably argue against my position is to actually argue against my position. To show a way in which experience can be unexperienced.
One element of the nature of experience is that it is subjective, thus it is not to be proven through extrospection, but rather introspection. There is no external proof for qualia as it is necessarily internal. I cannot prove the nature of my qualia to you, but i cannot doubt that it is there. If you have it, you also cannot doubt it. If you don't, it is because you lack consciousness as well as the ability to doubt.
