-->
@Double_R
TWS has a lack of marketable skills so he chooses to live off the government. By not having kids he is able to live off his small government check.
DeeSantis tries to whitewash slavery in school textbooks. What a sweetheart
Posts
Total:
121
Give me an example of a private bakery in the soviet union that benefited the public at large.They also build private infrastructure all the time.[IwantRooseveltagain] Oh really? Give me some recent examples of “private infrastructure” projects the last 20 years that have benefited the public at large.
Nobody can compete when your competition (the government) can abduct anyone who isn't a "customer".
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Gee, that’s a brilliant response to my question.
Do you really believe we would have all the roads, bridges and aqueducts we have by relying on private enterprise? Rural areas need government support. Even with it many rural areas are dying.
Even today, rural areas don’t have cell phone service because it just isn’t worth it.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You should be tagging whiteflame and oromagi. I am the assistant moderator; so if I made a ruling on a perceived insult in either direction, the decision would then be appealed to them anyways.
Generally I’ll say context and repetition matter.
As an example:
Oromagi and I disagree about the price of tea in China, and one of us in frustration declares “you suck at math,” which is followed by the biting reply “no you SUCK at MATH!” At that point it’s not a big deal.
A couple ways it would become problematic is if either of us began following the other into unrelated threads over it, or if in the original thread either of them us devolved into real vileness (ethnic slurs as an example).
I should add that not all descriptors are insults, even if they have negative associations. Not long ago I called a pedophila apologist, a pedophila apolagist. He was quite offended, because he just supports old men fucking pre-teens, and calling that what it is makes him look bad. I would still do this today, as he made his stance crystal clear what he is… That said, if I followed him around calling him pedo in unrelated discussions, that would cross more than one line. Even jumping to the simplified conclusion of calling him a pedo would be problematic and would merit a warning. But calling him what he takes pride in being, in threads where he’s talking about it, is topical discussion.
>
@Double_R
TWS has a lack of marketable skills so he chooses to live off the government. By not having kids he is able to live off his small government check.
Reported for as hominem personal attack.
@Barney
Generally I’ll say context and repetition matter.
This personal attack of IWRA has been repetitive and always contextually directed @ the person.
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
>
@Double_R
TWS has a lack of marketable skills so he chooses to live off the government. By not having kids he is able to live off his small government check.
Reported for as hominem personal attack.
@Barney
Generally I’ll say context and repetition matter.
This personal attack of IWRA has been repetitive and always contextually directed @ the person. This personal attack is tantamount to his insults @greyparrot about him being a teacher and other linked personal insults.
Actually Do something about it or I vote “Fanchick” is back in play where IWRA again is concerned.
Reported for as hominem personal attack.
No, no, it’s not an ad hom if it’s the truth of an observation. You are so banal.
-->
@Barney
I should add that not all descriptors are insults,
So it’s agreed then. TWS is a dummy and it’s fine to say so as long as I am responding to something stupid that he said.
-->@BarneyI should add that not all descriptors are insults,So it’s agreed then. TWS is a dummy and it’s fine to say so as long as I am responding to something stupid that he said.0
Dummy is a NOUN. it’s name calling. It’s NOT a “descriptor.” A descriptor is an adjective. Not a noun. Big fucking difference.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If he starts a thread titled something like “my IQ is in the double digits” then within that thread yea, otherwise it’d most closely match the example of what not to do from the end of that paragraph:
Even jumping to the simplified conclusion of calling him a [dummy] would be problematic and would merit a warning. But calling him what he takes pride in being, in threads where he’s talking about it, is topical discussion.
So if he raves about how great the Barbie movie was, within said thread you could call him someone who plays with dolls (anywhere else such would be a lame insult … and yea, liking a movie does not assure the factually of that conclusion).
Do you really believe we would have all the roads, bridges and aqueducts we have by relying on private enterprise? Rural areas need government support. Even with it many rural areas are dying.
I think the world is complicated and even more so when human interest is involved.
There are few hard and fast rules. "You need to steal it" is not true. Nor is "Just cross your fingers and hope".
I believe that through an evolutionary process within the strict confines of morally acceptable social structures (contracts between consenting parties) stable and effective solutions to every problem would be found and further that they would be better than any system where consent may be ignored.
I say this for the benefit of the general forum goer knowing you probably can't understand me.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I believe that through an evolutionary process
Ya, well the problem with that is people don’t eat in the long run, they eat every day. People can’t sit around waiting for gradual answers to immediate problems
you probably can't understand me.
Because your ideas are stupid?
Guys.
Stop using insults and stop responding to insults with insults.
If someone insults you, report.
If you insult back, it makes you almost just as guilty.
-->
@cristo71
Realistically, what outcome would you like to see from an argument?
A deeper understanding of the issue is always the goal. If my argument is wrong or if there are other ways I should look at the issue, show me. If it's not wrong or if I am seeing it as clearly as I need to, that will become more apparent through the discussion as well as subsequent discussions with other people.
I engage in every discussion as if the person at the other end shares that view. If they don't, then in my opinion, they're in the wrong place.
I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization that I'm "going for the win", but that doesn't mean that's the point. That's just the means by which the goal is achieved. It's like training for a marathon. While the marathon may be the focal point and motivator, the real reason one might be doing it is because they want to get in shape and lose weight.
In my opinion, the best way to understand an issue is to debate it. If you or others take that as a sign that I'm not intellectually curious or am unwilling to change my mind then there's little I can or care to do about it.
-->
@Double_R
A deeper understanding of the issue is always the goal.
Well, your posts fail to reflect that. I find that you often misunderstand my position with little need to better understand my position, which results in the creation of a strawman, whether intentional on your part or not. Even when you pose seemingly open ended, honest questions, you give the vibe that you already have “the one correct answer” in mind, and anything other than that will be strawmanned or simply discounted somehow. It is as if you hold the “correct” opinion, and all others are wrong or invalid.
If my argument is wrong or if there are other ways I should look at the issue, show me. If it's not wrong or if I am seeing it as clearly as I need to, that will become more apparent through the discussion as well as subsequent discussions with other people.
If you want to submit a specific argument for criticism from a standpoint of logic, I might suggest that you structure it in the form of a syllogism and create a thread offering it up for rigorous examination from the standpoint of logic. As things currently stand, it’s often your opinion against everyone else’s, with you assuming a posture of having a superior opinion to everyone else’s and little to desire to change that posture. Or you attempt to diminish other opinions without wanting to fully understand them first.
As I illustrated in my post 78, we don’t have enough frames of reference in common to have productive discussions. I cannot be bothered to spend a paragraph on each and every sentence of yours, explaining my various issues with it, only to have you dismiss, deny, or ignore what I just spent time and effort to say, while creating ever more aspects of disagreement that require more paragraphs to address.
Anyway, often a difference of opinion is just that. Not a competition to be won or lost, just an impasse.
I engage in every discussion as if the person at the other end shares that view. If they don't, then in my opinion, they're in the wrong place.
That is a problematic assumption. You are operating within the “right/wrong” binary. Opinions are neither right nor wrong. Formal arguments can be strong, weak, medium, valid, and invalid, but even they aren’t necessarily right or wrong.
As far as these forums being the wrong place for anyone, as long as members follow the Code of Conduct, it is neither the right nor wrong place for anyone to be.
I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization that I'm "going for the win", but that doesn't mean that's the point. That's just the means by which the goal is achieved. It's like training for a marathon. While the marathon may be the focal point and motivator, the real reason one might be doing it is because they want to get in shape and lose weight.
Ok, but prioritizing winning here often causes a hindrance to other priorities, such as listening, understanding, and learning. To use the marathon analogy, the motivation to win might tempt you to use performance drugs which hurt your health and reveal that you’re not above cheating.
In my opinion, the best way to understand an issue is to debate it. If you or others take that as a sign that I'm not intellectually curious or am unwilling to change my mind then there's little I can or care to do about it.
An unwillingness to change one’s mind isn’t a huge problem for me. An unwillingness to understand the opposition is. I argue things so that people can better understand opposing positions rather than assume those positions have no merit at all, and even that seems to be too high of an ideal to hold as I get older. I have a problem with “So, what you’re saying is [strawman]” and implications of “you believe that way out of stubbornness/ignorance/bigotry rather than rationality,” “your opinion is invalid,” “your opinion is inferior to mine,” etc. Oh, and the “if you are confident in your position, you should be able to effectively argue it against me” vibe. Hopefully, I have explained in enough detail here why I can’t be bothered to do that…
-->
@cristo71
Opinions are neither right nor wrong.
For Republicans, facts are neither right or wrong.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yep, ya got yer right facts, and then ya got what ya call yer wrong facts. Ya want to stick to the right ones…
Just thought I'd leave this here...
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), the only Black Republican representing Florida in Congress, has pushed back against the curriculum, tweeting that “the attempt to feature the personal benefits of slavery is wrong & needs to be adjusted.”
On Sunday, Will Hurd, a former Republican congressman from Texas who is also running for the Republican presidential nomination, said that “slavery is not a jobs program.”
Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy told CNN’s “State of the Union” that while he hasn’t read the curriculum in detail, “obviously, we should be teaching kids about the awful legacy of slavery.”
And Nikki Haley, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is also running for president, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that, in the 21st century, “we can all agree that there … were no positives that came out of slavery.”
On Friday, presidential candidate Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.), the only Black Republican in the U.S. Senate, also rebuked DeSantis while speaking to reporters on the campaign trail in Iowa.
“As a country founded upon freedom, the greatest deprivation of freedom was slavery,” Scott said. “There is no silver lining … in slavery. … What slavery was really about [was] separating families, about mutilating humans and even raping their wives. It was just devastating. So, I would hope that every person in our country — and certainly running for president — would appreciate that.”
Just thought I'd leave this here...
Sounds like a harbinger of number 2...
10 days later
-->
@Double_R
You once related to me that you, too, respect Professor John McWhorter’s insights and opinions. In light of that, I post this very recent video of him and Glenn Loury discussing the fallout regarding this issue, although it seems a bit “late to the party” now:
-->
@cristo71
Don't forget Kamala called Biden a racist in the presidential debates, then accepted his Vice Presidency, & when asked about the racist comment, laughed it off and said "It was a debate", implying it's not a lie when it's "politics." How anyone would trust anything coming out of her mouth without double checking is laughable.
-->
@Greyparrot
More precisely, she said something along the lines of “Now, I’m not saying you’re a racist, but let me tell a story [which illustrates how I think you are a racist]…”
-->
@cristo71
I'm just saying, she has displayed a history of political race baiting.
-->
@Greyparrot
No doubt, but the positive thing is that the vast majority of people are not impressed by her.
-->
@cristo71
No doubt, but the positive thing is that the vast majority of people are not impressed by her.
Recall that in November 2021, Harris interrupted a NASA presenter who was discussing “climate adaptation strategies” to ask, “Can you, can you measure, um, trees?” By way of explanation, she plowed on: “‘Cause part of that data that you are referring to, and it’s in EJ, environmental justice — that you can also track by race their averages in terms of the number of trees in the neighborhood where people live.”
Harris was here reflecting her belief in the socialist race-baiting myth that trees are distributed in a racist manner, which completely ignores both the urban rich and the rural poor. And there is, of course, more racism than just that. As far as Kamala Harris herself is concerned, anyone who notices that she isn’t all that bright is simply, you guessed it, a racist.
As far as Kamala Harris herself is concerned, anyone who notices that she isn’t all that bright…
Then how is it that she is so much more successful than you?
-->
@cristo71
You once related to me that you, too, respect Professor John McWhorter’s insights and opinions. In light of that, I post this very recent video of him and Glenn Loury discussing the fallout regarding this issue, although it seems a bit “late to the party” now:
For the most part I don’t disagree with his criticisms but he’s doing here what most do, attacking the low hanging fruit. There are certainly those who are demagoguing this and taking it to the extreme, but most of the criticisms on the left about this are not that. This is no different than the left bolstering Marjorie Taylor Green as the face of the Republican Party, although I would argue she’s far more representative of it than this is of the left.
The main part here that keeps coming up is this idea that the section which discusses this was about the resilience of the slaves to make the most out of a terrible situation. Well neither I nor anyone else can read minds, but we can read words. That’s not at all what it says.
-->
@Double_R
Thanks for checking out the conversation between Loury and McWhorter!
-->
@Double_R
Yes, thank you.
-->
@cristo71
One reason why oppression cultists might find that statement so sacrilegious is that it promotes the idea that people can overcome oppression. If the dogma states that the color of your skin defines your class of oppression and not individual success, this statement can never be allowed to be accepted. Marxism has no purpose in a society where oppression can be overcome.