TRUMP INDICTED!

Author: Sidewalker

Posts

Total: 231
#91
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
#80:
Humans are fallible. No human belief was, is, or ever will be a deductive means of determining the truth.
Finally some common ground!

If there is no morality, what is law but the game theory that allows us to live together, deserving no respect the moment the violence of the government can be escaped by concealment or first-strike?
This is weird.

Worldviews, that is packaged systems of philosophy, religion, or culture; are a bit like genes. They reproduce, the compete for limited resources (people's minds), and sometimes they go extinct.
Yes! more common ground.

The era of natural selection is over. Now is the era of intelligent selection. What we choose to value matters more than accidents of genetics.
not quite yet

equilibrium, or peace, will be found in the system of values and code of behavior with no contradictions.
good luck finding that system

Like all the equations agreeing at once Liberty minimizes conflict not because it was designed to, but because conflict comes from contradictions in values. If the only permissible values and behaviors comply with liberty their holders are by definition compatible.
How can some values & behaviors being impermissible be compatible with liberty?

Liberty is the most fit of all ethics because it is logical and universal (both together mean objective).

I noticed that you don’t use the word libertarian or libertarianism. Do you not agree with them?

#92
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@b9_ntt
If there is no morality, what is law but the game theory that allows us to live together, deserving no respect the moment the violence of the government can be escaped by concealment or first-strike?
This is weird.
Alright, let me put it in terms you've probably seen before. Abrahamic types say god is the only source of morality, or more specifically objective morality, undeniable morality. So let's replace "god" with "objective morality"

Without objective morality, why shouldn't I just kill you and take your money and then rape your wife if I can get away with it?

Like all the equations agreeing at once Liberty minimizes conflict not because it was designed to, but because conflict comes from contradictions in values. If the only permissible values and behaviors comply with liberty their holders are by definition compatible.
How can some values & behaviors being impermissible be compatible with liberty?
There are two flavors of the value of liberty. There is the value of one's own liberty which is inescapable and universal; and there is the value of everyone's liberty as an abstract value.

The first is a fact, the second is a choice.

Those who choose to value everyone's liberty, by that choice limit the range of values and behaviors they can logically hold. The liberty I was referring to (and am always referring to in a social ethics context) is the abstract liberty.

The set of behaviors that are eliminated is easily defined by this thought experiment: Imagine the world without moral peers. You alone, possibly immortal, non-sapient lifeforms as your only company. Anything you can do in that world is your right.

Now add moral peers. Nothing of the new options added by their presence is your right, those are privilege contingent upon their consent. Furthermore that which you cannot do without violence, threats of violence, or deception is lost.

Liberty is the most fit of all ethics because it is logical and universal (both together mean objective).
I noticed that you don’t use the word libertarian or libertarianism. Do you not agree with them?
No I agree with the libertarian platform more than any other political policy sheet in the world.

I don't use the word "libertarian" because that is ceding ground to the collectivists who are trying to usurp the words "liberty" and "liberal". Those insidious glory-thieves want to think themselves the inheritors of the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th century (see oromagi constantly yammering about the tennis court oath). They are not.

When they talk about liberty they mean liberty from hunger, illness, poverty, and now one's own biology. In short they think liberty from the laws of physics is a right. All those things are of value, and we should certainly work to attain values, but they aren't rights.

They can't be rights because the only liberty that is ethically relevant, the liberty that those 18th and 19th century revolutions were about was liberty from the oppression of other moral actors.

If the baker has a right to liberty, you have no right to bread.
If you have a right to bread, the baker has no right to liberty.

You can't have it both ways.
#93
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Without objective morality, why shouldn't I just kill you and take your money and then rape your wife if I can get away with it?
Because you’d have to be watching your back all the time, sleeping only intermittently, trusting no one and having to do everything yourself. Who would want to live in such a society? Only sociopaths.

Those who choose to value everyone's liberty, by that choice limit the range of values and behaviors they can logically hold. The liberty I was referring to (and am always referring to in a social ethics context) is the abstract liberty.
More common ground.

No I agree with the libertarian platform more than any other political policy sheet in the world.
When I consider the consequences of a libertarian society, I end up with feudalism. The rich and powerful would rule; others would align themselves with an individual ruler and be subservient to them (most likely “him”). Upward mobility would be rare.

#94
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@b9_ntt
Without objective morality, why shouldn't I just kill you and take your money and then rape your wife if I can get away with it?
Because you’d have to be watching your back all the time, sleeping only intermittently, trusting no one and having to do everything yourself. Who would want to live in such a society? Only sociopaths.
Oh no b9, sociopaths don't want to live in a society where everyone else are sociopaths. They want to live in a society where people believe in rights so they can abuse the social trust of the average person.

So why would you assume that the whole society would be like that? Are you angling towards Kant's imperative? That I must act in such a way that if all the world acted like me I would still prefer it?

Yet that too is no less an abstraction than my derivation of liberty. In fact I've shown before that Kant's imperative also leads to the same conclusion; I don't prefer to make that argument because there are many unnecessary steps and Kant's imperative obscures the fact that there is a choice.

Why act so? The whole world may act by a different principle and you may succeed at being the wolf in sheep's clothing.

No I agree with the libertarian platform more than any other political policy sheet in the world.
When I consider the consequences of a libertarian society, I end up with feudalism. The rich and powerful would rule; others would align themselves with an individual ruler and be subservient to them (most likely “him”). Upward mobility would be rare.
Sounds like you have feudalism confused with wealth inequality. Feudalism certainly leads to wealth inequality, but wealth inequality doesn't imply feudalism.

This is because someone with the power to steal and enslave will make himself rich, yet a rich man does not necessarily have the power to steal and enslave. If your society's protection of rights allows money to buy theft and slavery it's not very liberal is it.
#95
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Jan 6 was a blip and instantly condemned by every right-wing news outlet. Again, we don't have a fucking backbone

#96
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If your society's protection of rights allows money to buy theft and slavery it's not very liberal is it.
Our rights are protected in the USA now. Human nature being what it is, it's still hard to assert those rights sometimes. I think it would be even harder in a libertarian society. Even now, a rich person can keep a case tied up in the court system beyond the ability of a poor person to press their case.  We know that very rich people expect to get what they want, all the time. With fewer legal constraints, a rich person in a libertarian society would get their way all the time. Feudalism is one possible outcome, with private police forces being openly advocated by libertarians now.

Humans will manage to corrupt any system. I like our system because it institutionalized ways to balance power. That's why would-be dictators like Trump should be opposed. He exploited the cracks in our system and will probably get away with it, leaving the door open for someone smarter, like DiSantis, to smash the system altogether.
#97
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Jan 6 was a blip and instantly condemned by every right-wing news outlet.
I agree, but that caused the few right-tribe commenters and news agencies who didn't condemn it to grow. The base is more radical than the surface leadership on both sides.

That's how you tell a looming civil war from a political drama.

If the right-tribe leadership continues to resist they will snap before they bend. When they snap the new leadership will be far more unrestrained. The rapid escalation may catch the left-tribe off balance.


#98
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@b9_ntt
If your society's protection of rights allows money to buy theft and slavery it's not very liberal is it.
Our rights are protected in the USA now.
Not all of them, and those that are, imperfectly.

Probably freedom of speech is the nearest to perfection in precedent. Recent actions of the DOJ are adding demerits to the practice.

Human nature being what it is, it's still hard to assert those rights sometimes. I think it would be even harder in a libertarian society. Even now, a rich person can keep a case tied up in the court system beyond the ability of a poor person to press their case.
and what about inefficient courts, unreasonably long contracts, and endless stacks of law books are inherent to liberty?

We know that very rich people expect to get what they want, all the time. With fewer legal constraints, a rich person in a libertarian society would get their way all the time.
Or maybe the law is the weapon of those with the resources to wield it, and right now those are the evil rich (which are distinguished from the good rich by the fact that they're f'ing evil).

Feudalism is one possible outcome, with private police forces being openly advocated by libertarians now.
Private vs public is a conceptual trap laid by socialist thinkers. Good and evil don't care who hired you. A true and noble knight in feudalism is preferable to a fascist cop born out of a democracy. Certainly if by "private" you mean soldiers who are empowered to violate rights without check or balance this is unacceptable.

It is possible that a sufficiently cunning arrangement of government could separate government and economics, and that would be the death knell of money being dangerous. It was the belief and hope of the founding fathers that a sufficiently cunning constitution could protect rights better than the hybrid of democracy and fuedalism that existed in England.

They were right, it did work better. If it worked once, who is to say further improvements are impossible?

Humans will manage to corrupt any system.
If they themselves are corrupt, but we know we can impede corruption. Perhaps one day we will be able to create a society where the rate of virtue revival is greater than the rate of corruption. If we never try, we will never succeed and besides there is nothing else to strive towards except known failure.

I like our system because it institutionalized ways to balance power. That's why would-be dictators like Trump should be opposed. He exploited the cracks in our system and will probably get away with it, leaving the door open for someone smarter, like DiSantis, to smash the system altogether.
You are the victim of propaganda. Whatever Trump's failings and mistakes the only reason you think that is because of a concerted campaign to destroy him due to the threat he posed to the dominant corruption of the system.

The extent to which that campaign succeeded and the direct attacks on democracy by the deep state since is the prognosis for our republic: Dying, won't be long now.

#99
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I mean fuck we need it
Topic's author
#100
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5

#101
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
What does this mean?
#102
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Who did not condemn it? 
#103
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@b9_ntt
Because you’d have to be watching your back all the time, sleeping only intermittently, trusting no one and having to do everything yourself. Who would want to live in such a society? Only sociopaths.
Careful. Mobs and gangs do that all the time. But maybe they'd double speek on the issued say "trust no one" & "trust the gamg". Lol. 
#104
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@hey-yo
One America News, Steven Crowder, Robert Barnes; probably some others but I don't know them all. I think newsmax caved but bounced back much quicker than most.

I know who lost out. Fox News. They lost me when the censored the president. Nothing could scream "we're propaganda not news" louder than that.
#105
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
1. Are those not satire shows more than actual journalist news agencies?

2. I thought crowder did condemn actions on the 6th. 

What did fox news sensor. I did not see what happened. 

To be honest i stopped watching the newwms 8 ish months after covid. 
#106
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I tried to do reasearch into crowder. Got distracted by a video of someone putting toy rocket engine on rc airplane.  Oops
#107
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,985
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
All censorship is disinformation and propaganda. Has Covid censorship taught us nothing?
#108
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Jan 6 was a blip and instantly condemned by every right-wing news outlet.
What are you smokin?

#109
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
@hey-yo
1. Are those not satire shows more than actual journalist news agencies?
OAN and Newsmax try to be like a classic news agencies. It's important to note that most of these organizations don't actually operate investigative journalists (including CNN). Almost all are simply commentary and sumerization of AP, local channels, and directly related information (like a press briefing).

When you don't care about the truth why investigate?

Robert Barnes is a lawyer not a journalist, he hangs around with Viva Frei. They do commentary just like to so-called journalists and their legal commentary has (AFIK) been far more accurate than anyone else's. Barnes was sounding the alarm about Sydney Powell and that other lunatic while all the shills were tiptoeing.

Anyway Barnes said that the shaman guy sitting at Pelosi's desk didn't bother him at all. That the aloof arrogance of congress needed some popping (paraphrasing). That's farther than anyone else on entering the building.

2. I thought crowder did condemn actions on the 6th. 
If you mean "the violence" yes, that's pretty universal. He never blamed it on Trump, never used the word "insurrection" outside of a joke (that I've heard).

I tried to do reasearch into crowder.
He's a weird case. Definitely satire, comedian, pretty edgy and I hate it when he delights in prison rape; but he also does investigate things personally and when he says "all links and data available on louder with crowder dot com" he means it. He backs himself up way better than the glorified bloggers of common elsewhere.

I mean he made certain claims about publicly available voter data and because he documented it so well I was able to confirm with state websites before they took down the API. You never get that kind of confirmation with "mainstream" claims.

What did fox news sensor. I did not see what happened.

All censorship is disinformation and propaganda. Has Covid censorship taught us nothing? 
Sure, but what I'm talking about was super obvious. Trump was making a speech and the Fox News guy cut off the video feed as soon as Trump started talking about election fraud and stared right into the camera saying something about how "since Fox News can't confirm this we've decided not to platform the president"

Even thinking about it three years later makes my blood boil. Filthy enemies of the people.

This is not the exact clip I remember, this one is about the press secretary, looks like they kept doing it after I swore off Fox News forever: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-10/fox-cuts-white-house-briefing-trump-us-election-fraud-claims/12866816
#110
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If I condemn the violence then I condemn the action, no? 

Othwrwise do I need to denounce something I do not think happened? 

(Im just talking in first person. I dont really have an opinion on 6th other than the violence and "invasion" was stupid. I do think it was staged though. )
#111
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,985
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@hey-yo
Most people probably share your opinion on that.
#112
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@hey-yo
If I condemn the violence then I condemn the action, no? 
You have a point. No one on youtube but left-tribers are allowed to condone violence. Perhaps there are some on Rumble.

Now when I responded to Franklin the context was "Jan 6", referring to the whole protest. The left-tribe gleefully reminds people that not every single person in the BLM riots were burning things down and beating people half-to-death. "Mostly peaceful"

Well Jan 6 was mostly peaceful, and those that crossed the line to rioting were mostly just breaking windows and door locks. Barnes condoned entering the building.

My whole point was not to deny that leadership of right-tribe are mostly spineless, it's to point out that the base isn't. They swarm instantly towards anyone willing to cross the lines set by life-tribe institutions (almost always hypocritically).

(Im just talking in first person. I dont really have an opinion on 6th other than the violence and "invasion" was stupid. I do think it was staged though. )
It may have been goaded by the deep state but most of the people there were not infiltrators and they were angry enough to break windows. I saw a kid doing it.

I disagree strongly with the Tim Pool style narrative of "it was stupid it hurt the right-tribe", no the hypocritical coverage and one sided legal weaponization hurt the right-tribe. You can't win if one side is allowed to burn down cities and threaten supreme court justices but you aren't. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't; but with enough violence the balance of fear may be restored regardless of what the left-tribe propaganda machine says.


#113
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah but we probably differ on reasons why. I dont think most will consider circumstantial evidence. Ha ha. 
#114
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I see your point. Hypocrisy usually hurts agendas. 

Hey, out of curiousity. You saw a kid do it, was that in a video? Crazy, regardless to reasons or who, how things just go crazy. Ha ha. Like back in 1992. Those riots just snow balled. 

The hurde mentality always fascinated me. I do not desire to partake in it but sometimes ite subconcioUs I think. 
#115
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
it's true
#116
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@hey-yo
Hey, out of curiousity. You saw a kid do it, was that in a video?
No, in person.
#117
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it's true
In a FOX News kind of truthiness way?

#118
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What serious right-wing figure condoned the J6 riots?
#119
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The ones who said the police welcomed them in to the Capitol.

The ones who said those arrested are political prisoners.

The ones who said J6 was protected by the Constitution as free assembly, free speech, and a form of political protest 
#120
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
The ones who told the truth... well if that's condoning then some definitely did condone.