ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
His logic inflexibly applies in all circumstances. That was my point. I'm not arguing about the wisdom of COVID lockdowns specifically. As usual, I'm arguing that Luciom is letting his pseudo-intellectual fantasies about utopian societies override common sense, especially when confronted with edge case scenarios.
"fantasies about utopian societies" are what made the founding fathers write the federal constitution.
and it's very clear that it worked better than other constitutions because it has some fundamental rights that don't get suspended even in "edge cases" even if "common sense" would make it practical for some (or many) to do so, that's one of the key aspects.
when you start opening the door to emergency suspension of supposedly inviolable rights, the government magically always finds a new emergency.
btw I wasn't arguing about lockdowns either.
I was pointing out a clear, absurd, completely indefensible incoherency in the treatment of two very similar cases.
anyway yes some rights do apply inflexibly to all circumstances, that's what "unalienable" means.
We laugh about my nieces coming back from college with Covid and ruining Christmas one year. We met halfway and talked to each other in our cars in a parking lot. If we followed blahblahs advice, I guess the alternative would be us making fun of them for killing their grandparents.
another example of how useful the vaccine mandate was oh wait
rococo, scenarios:
(maybe implausible for now but yours about the vaccine was as well so please answer anyway):
1) a drug that makes you lose Y points of IQ as a pregnant woman, makes your child X IQ points smarter.
MANDATE OR NOT? depends on y and x? if so with which numbers? why?
2) a drug that has no known scientific side effects in pregnant women, very very slightly improves the health of the kid lifetime (1% risk reduction for several old age diseases)
MANDATE OR NOT? and why?
3) a genetic modification of the fetus that is only applicable after it implants in the womb, with very very low chances of killing it (1/50k range) increases the expected lifespan of the person by 10%
MANDATE OR NOT? and why?
do you see the implications of a lack of absolute, inviolable, principles now a little better?
now add the layer of "what the models say is what the people writing the models want" in real life and solve at the margin
Rage on into the night....there must not be any friendly bars in Luciomtopia.
ever played mtts? if you don't find various activities to do between a fold and a fold you die very young
TID
Trump in diaper
rococo, scenarios:
(maybe implausible for now but yours about the vaccine was as well so please answer anyway):
1) a drug that makes you lose Y points of IQ as a pregnant woman, makes your child X IQ points smarter.
MANDATE OR NOT? depends on y and x? if so with which numbers? why?
2) a drug that has no known scientific side effects in pregnant women, very very slightly improves the health of the kid lifetime (1% risk reduction for several old
If I were an absolute ruler, I would not mandate any of these things.
do you see the implications of a lack of absolute, inviolable, principles now a little better?
These examples do nothing to convince me of the rightness of your opinion. Certain principles should be absolute or inviolable, or nearly so. "An individual should never be compelled or incentivized by the government to do something for the benefit of collective public health" is not one of those principles imo.
Put another way, it is entirely logical for me to both disfavor the mandates you describe above while also rejecting your brand of absolutism. If you think that you have walked me into a logical gotcha, you are mistaken.
If I were an absolute ruler, I would not mandate any of these things.
These examples do nothing to convince me of the rightness of your opinion. Certain principles should be absolute or inviolable, or nearly so. "An individual should never be compelled or incentivized by the government to do something for the benefit of collective public health" is not one of those principles imo.
Put another way, it is entirely logical for me to both dis
the absolute rule is needed if you feel the same moral horror I do about mandating at least one of the 3.
why? because quite simply the 51% shouldn't have the power to mandate that.
it isn't about a gotcha, it's about why you deny it would be proper to secure against the possibility of those things, and similar, be mandated, with a clear provision prohibiting that in the constitution?
which absurd problem for society do you think could happen, that would require denying my principle (of no mandate to sacrifice for the statistical benefit of third parties ever being legal) as necessary to save society, in order to incur the risk of any of the above or many other analogous moral horrors be mandated ever?
even in the scenario you described, how do you convince half of the population to do something they aren't willing to do to save their lives with 60% probability? it's quite literally people willing to die to not comply, why do you think it would be possible to mandate that to them?
it can only work when it's small minorities. and if it's small minorities, what can they ever be up to that society collapses if we can't mandate their sacrifice, and it's proper to risk any devious or evil party with 51% momentarily to violate such an important principle?
I was hoping that things like the moral horror of the Vietnam war draft (quite possibly thenmost glaring example of a violation of my principle, before vaccine mandates excluding you from society) would have been enough to convince reasonable people the state shouldn't have the power to mandate you to sacrifice for the theoretical benefit of others.
I was hoping that things like the moral horror of the Vietnam war draft (quite possibly thenmost glaring example of a violation of my principle, before vaccine mandates excluding you from society) would have been enough to convince reasonable people the state shouldn't have the power to mandate you to sacrifice for the theoretical benefit of others.
What do you think was so much worse about that than about any other draft by any country for any war?
Are you seriously arguing that rhetorical flourishes in the Federalist Papers are evidence that the United States was the product of utopian fantasies?
i am seriously arguing that what you call "utopian fantasy" is just a novel interpretation of very classic ideas repackaged through the lessons of history, as was the case for those guys in the 18th century.
unclear why you consider "utopian" a list of things that patchwork exist right now in various countries
What do you think was so much worse about that than about any other draft by any country for any war?
it's approx as bad as any draft to wage a war of aggression toward a country that you aren't a neighbor of, which is something that happens rarely.
but the fact the war had absolutely no rationale at that scale, and even if won wouldn't have materially helped the lives of Americans, make a draft to fight it particularly atrocious.
draft for self defense is far less morally bankrupt; still wrong because a violation of the principle described , but far less than for aggression, and far far far less than for useless, particularly stupid, aggression at scale (bombing them a lot could have made sense, boots on the ground wtf)
i am seriously arguing that what you call "utopian fantasy" is just a novel interpretation of very classic ideas repackaged through the lessons of history, as was the case for those guys in the 18th century.
unclear why you consider "utopian" a list of things that patchwork exist right now in various countries
There is no country in the world with an advanced economy that has a government that remotely resembles your ideal government. Somalia from 1991 to 2006 was relatively close to your ideal, but that's hardly a mark in favor of your system.
There is no country in the world with an advanced economy that has a government that remotely resembles your ideal government. Somalia from 1991 to 2006 was relatively close to your ideal, but that's hardly a mark in favor of your system.
patchwork I said.
There are countries with flat income taxes.
Countries with no property tax on owner occupied housing.
Countries/states with no VAT/sales taxes.
Countries where the draft is unconstitutional.
Countries with no vaccine mandates
Countries with strong "stand your ground" (castle doctrine) rules
Countries where almost all substances are legal to consume
Countries with purely proportional representative systems
Countries with no taxes on capital gain
and so on and on.
it's very very few of my ideas that have no present-day application anywhere
His logical inflexibly applies in all circumstances. That was my point. I'm not arguing about the wisdom of COVID lockdowns specifically. As usual, I'm arguing that Luciom is letting his pseudo-intellectual fantasies about utopian societies override common sense, especially when confronted with edge case scenarios.
In this case I think this is closer than may be being made out. In the UK, lockdowns, vaccine mandates etc were as close to unthinkable as it gets while restrictions on someone diagnosed with a contagous disease are easily accepted. We need imo to take limited action with those who break lockdown etc. I was and remain totally in the lockdown camp but understand why people disagree. Unless he is claiming some utopia than I hate that argument against any system. A utopian standard is not close to a a fair comparison for any system.
I thing edge cases is a red herring. Maybe luciom doens't get this (fair enough becaue most dont) but any serious system of absolute principles has edge cases because the individual principles conflict at times (or as I like to put it, you cannot comb a hairy ball)
Noem doubling down on killing a puppy she couldn’t train and using that as a selling point to buy her book probably makes her the perfect trump running mate
That bimbo clownass is really arguing ‘if I can’t train you I’ll just kill you. SEE HOW I MAKE THE HARD CHOICE?!’
Noem said "Cricket," a 14-month-old wirehaired pointer, was a female with an "aggressive personality," according to The Guardian.
During a pheasant-hunting trip, the dog went "out of her mind with excitement," and later attacked another family's chickens. And when she went to grab Cricket, Noem says, the dog bit her.
"I hated that dog," Noem wrote in the excerpt. The dog was "dangerous to anyone she came in contact with" and "less than worthless" as a hunting dog.
"I realized I had to put her down," she wrote. The newspaper did not say when Noem said the incident occurred.
According to The Guardian, Noem said she included the grisly story to demonstrate her readiness in politics to do what needs to be done, even if it's "difficult, messy and ugly."
This, in her mind, makes her relatable and popular and somehow people wonder why the MAGA crowd are assumed to be subhuman garbage
This is your champion, guys. Prove me wrong
🙄
It’s kinda funny to read Jared Kushner’s victory lap over the Abraham Accords now. It was obviously nonsense even at the time but he genuinely said the Israel Palestine conflict was a minor real estate dispute not really important for Israel going forward. It’s just crazy he got someone to write up that stuff for him.
I don't know why he didn't eradicate COVID when he had POTUS superpowers.
Lol, yeah surely Trump being American president would clear up those minor differences between Israelis and Palestinians. Weren't they all holding hands and singing Kumbaya while he was in office before?
This is the type of behavior that Losen, bahbah and Blowie find so appealing about him.
