@Jiro's banner p

Jiro


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 444

Jiro


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 444

Verified Email

"Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is."

You literally picked some random person from a group you don't like and told a shaggy dog story about her just so you can have a wall of text whose upshot is that this person and "people like" her are bad.

Fuente's obsession with Israel appeared to result in what is perhaps the most accurate prediction of the series of events following Oct. 7th among anyone else.

They're still not accurate. You snuck in there "enables Israel to finally solve the Gaza Question with ethnic cleansing" as a "successful" prediction. It's actually a failed prediction.

"Knowingly" and "will give Israel an excuse to" are not successful predictions either, unless you can read minds.

Every time I read one of these pathetic tough guy screeds, my first thought is to laugh at the absolute lack of self-awareness. 'Reee, my outgroup is full of animals who would never compromise or act in good faith! This justifies me never acting in good faith either.

Cool. Tell me about some relevant instances of your outgroup acting in good faith.

I'd think that if the movement has changed enough that the bad faith from 40 years ago isn't relevant, then people in the present-day movement who are acting in good faith would say "I admit that happened 40 years ago, but we no longer want to do that." If they don't say that, then either they are acting in bad faith today or they have to appease people in the movement who are acting in bad faith today.

Ideally they should also add "... and here's what we're doing to make sure it doesn't happen again". But they haven't even gotten to the first step of admitting that it's a concern.

No, that's precisely the kind of rights-based mindset that I'm describing as not being duty-based.

If he owes the duty to other people, his mindset isn't the only one--there's also the other people's mindset to consider. And they may think that they are owed, but that they don't owe. It's exploitation by them.

It's the real life equivalent of "your forum dedicated to free speech will have one principled free speech defender and ten zillion witches".

If America isn't clever enough, organised enough or stable enough to compete with China on an even footing, why should it be in charge of the globe?

Because the comparison isn't America to some hypothetical perfect country. It's a comparison to China, and China's government is pretty shitty. If you have to choose between China and America and you're not in the Politburo, America is loads better even if you don't like some of the things America does.

That argument might make sense if this were like any other wedding where they're essentially relying on the honor system that uninvited guests don't show up, but this wasn't the case. This is a wedding that was held at a secret location that was difficult to get to and guarded by staff checking names.

The wedding staff doesn't give up being entitled to assume people are trustworthy just because they have guards there. By your reasoning, if a store has no security, you shouldn't shoplift, but if the store has security, it is okay to bypass the security and shoplift. In fact, stores actually factor a certain amount of shoplifting into their budget, and that still doesn't entitle you to shoplift.

You're also deciding that the security counts or doesn't count depending on which is most convenient for you. You shouldn't be saying both 1) the security is meant to stop people like you, so there's no trust and it's okay to crash the wedding, and 2) the security is meant to stop fans of Lady Gaga, not people like you, so you are not the kind of people they're concerned about.

If she's trying to find a husband, presumably the baby would be with her husband. That's not out of wedlock; that's in wedlock.

You have taken him out of context. If you look a few posts down, you see that he also says that people already understand that men need to be held accountable. You've distorted his claim that women should be accountable just like everyone else to imply that he says that only women need to be held accountable.

Manchin is actually quoted as saying he's doing this "not as a Democrat", and I think this counts as saying that the Tsar is poorly advised:

Manchin said he is a proud Democrat, having been raised with the values of “always reaching out, trying to help others have a better quality of life and help themselves” and taking care of those who cannot help themselves.

But he said sometimes his party’s priorities in Washington are “out of balance with … how we do business in West Virginia.”

Sanders is claiming that Obama isn't left wing enough, which is a 50 Stalins criticism. And it's not actually hard to find conservatives criticizing Trump.

Where was there criticism of Obama from Democrats that was not of the 50 Stalins variety?

Compared to members of the minority population with similar credentials?

If you read my comment more carefully, you'd know the whole point was to contrast mainstream conservatives with the far-right, who I recognize as distinct groupings.

Then why do you claim that most of this site is far right?

What could possibly be not "mechanistic paradigm" yet not be souls either?

That is a very noncentral use of the term "sex worker".

That's low IQ by mistake theory. By conflict theory their IQ is fine, but they're being disingenuous in a way that doesn't make sense.

If he loses, it's rigged against him. If he wins, it's rigged against him

If you're considering the possibility of rigged elections at all, there's nothing inherently goofy about this. "Rigged" doesn't mean "they can fake absolutely any outcome they want"--if they could fake X percent of votes and he wins by more than X percent, it might be rigged against him and he could win anyway.

His arguments about drugs also include pornography, which he lumps in with drugs as causing only harm. If you don't count "people like to use it" as being good, you would oppose not only drugs and pornography but also video games, comic books, vacations, and Shakespeare (except that he probably has arbitrary categories of non-harm that would allow vacations and Shakespeare).

If I told you I trapped rats to torture them because it felt good and made me laugh you'd probably remember my face and tell people to avoid me.

If you told me that you enjoy a video game where the goal is to torture fictional characters, I'd also probably remember your face and tell people to avoid you. What makes me suspicious of you is that by playing this hypothetical game you are reacting as though you want to cause suffering. It doesn't matter whether the suffering is real.

That doesn't generalize to society "wanting to torture rats" because "society" is only "torturing rats" as an instrumental goal in the process of doing something else. If it's an instrumental goal, whether the suffering is real actually matters.

(Likewise, I'd look askance at anyone committing bestiality, not because it harms the animal, which isn't a person, but because of what it says about the person doing it. First of all, humans who are attracted to animals are generally messed up anyway, and second, anyone having sex with an animal probably has false beliefs about the animal's consent, which is delusional.)

It sounds as though the staff would object.

The hearing was supposed to be for expunging his commitment. People don't get committed for forgetting their medication. It's not supposed to be "is there anything wrong with him such that we don't want him to have a gun" even though the state used it that way.

Is it? Most people don't behave as if marriages are transactions (in a nontrivial sense). For that matter, they don't behave as if children are property. People who do treat marriages as transactions and children as property are frowned on and considered disturbed and even criminal. You can in some literal sense use those terms but that ignores the emotional attachments people have to spouses and children, which massively affects behavior.

Also, some of your conclusions don't seem to match the real world. The average woman in favor of abortion isn't more likely to be progressive because they have the least to offer other than sex and children. Being progressive is associated with having the most to offer--they're likely to have university degrees, journalist positions, etc. Housewifes are more likely to oppose abortion.

You also seem to think that the belief about whether fetuses count as people is for all practical purposes completely downstream from other considerations. But it's obvious in the real world that religious belief in the personhood of the fetuses is a huge source of opposition to abortion, not the effect of it.

But the thing is, it didn't look like an MS-13 tattoo. It was made of symbols and in a fit of pareidolia people made the symbols match MS-13.

If it actually was a MS-13 tattoo I'd expect we'd have heard of other gang members using it.

Normal people don't count 1% as more likely in most contexts. They interpret it to mean "significantly more likely".