Total topics: 30
I've often ranted about the appeals to authority as often expressed "Trust the experts" or "Trust the science".
While I've been absolutely correct in those rants and in fully dismissing appeals to authority within unscoped debate, I don't think I've put it as succinctly as RFK does here:
Put all our faith in the technocrats. That's why this mantra of "trust the experts". Trusting the experts is not a feature of democracy, it is not a feature of science. It's a feature of religion, it's a feature of totalitarianism, but it's absolutely anathema to science and democracy.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
This is a repost from another website (a naughty forum). I felt I should post it here because I quote someone from this site. When I say "this website" I'm not talking about debateart.
I thought this would be the ideal time to make a point, what with the normally impenetrable derision characteristic of the internet scum bag being subdued by recent events. At least the scum bags suffering from TDS.
Right about now a lot of you will be complaining about all the hateful rhetoric and how scared everyone should be, but this is the perfect time to remind you that you have some scary (and despicable) pieces of shit on your side too. Did you call them out when you were riding high and thought you were on the right side of history?
A most useful example is something that has been a trigger issue of mine for a long time. Rape as a form of hexing. Wishing rape upon your enemies or those you find despicable.
Why? Well before this website existed I was debating people about the morality of bestiality. The psychology of the normal person in regards to bestiality is a complicated subject but suffice to say a lot of normies are disgusted and a certain subset of those disgusted people seemed to find some sort of vent in wishing rape upon myself and all zoosexuals.
It happened with such frequency that I concluded it was more than merely a random insult (not that it would be tolerable as such). One's first guess would be that it was some kind of an 'eye for an eye' thing. They think zoosexuals are rapists, and rapists should be raped.
After all certainly the most common example of people cheering prison rape is the rape of supposed pedophiles and it's pretty clear that many of the people cheering see some kind of poetic justice in it.
That doesn't explain everything though. You see in the case of zoosexuals the rape fantasizers were often quite particular about the rapist being an animal.
I can't recall the people fantasizing about the rape of pedophiles ever specifying that the rapist ought to be a child. There is something to that difference in terms of a tacit admission that animals are not like children, they have no 'innocence' to protect.
Still there is a final piece of the puzzle. Sometimes people fantasize about the rape of people by non-humans with no context of zoosexuality.
This was posted by someone called Sidewalker April 28th 2024 (emphasis bold added).
Key Takeaways:
- The halls will be filled with the sound of "The Donald" squealing like a pig.
- Rocky's new nickname for Trump will be "My Bitch".
- Trump learns to enjoy squealing like a pig for Rocky and his friends.
Thoughts?
Here the prison rape fantasy is combined with animal rape, as if to emphasize... what?
Dehumanization, that's the answer. Defilement, shame, defeat, etc...
The common denominator of all rape fantasizers is that they think its shameful to be raped. That there is some kind of cosmic justice which causes only those who deserve it to be raped, or at least those who deserved it to be raped more than others.
We don't have to look very hard at the history and diversity of human cultures to see this idea expressed. When I connected it to the honor killing of raped women I knew I had figured it out.
Now these people are not necessarily consciously aware of it, but in my opinion it is the only plausible reason these rape fantasizers could get an ounce of catharsis out of their fantasy; and they clearly do and they get more when they make it public and sneer and laugh at the victim.
From the time I realized this on it has always infuriated me. To give an analogy: It's OK to hate Hissene Habre, but when you throw the hard R in your insults you're saying something about yourself too.
=========
Isn't this all just people talking on the internet? Who cares?
Well the assertion that the internet is a fake world where no words matter was always stupid and it's getting stupider every year.
We're real people talking to real people, and worse we're often more honest than we are in person. If you want to know why politeness exists just imagine how quickly the punching would start if people acted in real life as they do online.
Prison rape is not just an abstract idea, it happens; and given that it's been a long time since the invention of the security camera one can only conclude that it's being allowed to happen.
The only reason it would be allowed to happen is these sick rape fantasizers. It truly is a slippery slope for the victims are not all zoosexuals and pedophiles (not that anyone deserves it).
The rape fantasizer will slide down the slope and start to imagine more and more enemies and those they find beneath them as valid targets for punishment by rape. There is perhaps nothing more corrosive to society than to imagine political disagreement to be a valid basis for torture and yet rape fantasizers have already and will continue to publicly interject the image of their political opponents being raped, not as some well intentioned warning or worse case prediction but as a implicit wish.
Some shitstains on this website have done this and some have done it to me, and they know who they are. I have given an example of someone doing it about a former president and presidential candidate.
These people are enabling a most inexcusable torture, they are doing it over reasons that would be insufficient to slap someone, and it is more than just talk:
Jason Galanis claims to have been sexually abused in prison. There is a strong implication that it was done in political retribution. I'm not a human lie detector but his acting is good enough to convince me.
A commentator I regularly follow commented on that story and I'd like to amplify what he said:
Welcome to the brave new world. It's not surprising. These things have happened forever. It appears that his story is... I don't know if he's trying to make that direct connection, but it appears so, that he's basically saying: When he decided to speak out and alert people to what was going on, providing evidence. The corrupt individuals in government, the "Biden crime family", whatever you want to call it, set out to retaliate against him to the point where he was sexually abused.
Because they know that's a form of torture, and it's colloquially... I mean it's a joke in the United States.
How horrifying is that?
That we live in a world where... in this country the left, they gloat, they laugh about it! That... these people will be raped in prison.
That's torture, but that's what communists do, they don't care about enlightenment values, they don't care about truth or honesty, they don't care about a functioning system. They care about power.
Unfortunately that's the world we're in. That's it. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
I know that it isn't only the left-tribe that does this. I stopped listening to Stephen Crowder entirely because their "jokes" about prison rape were transparently wishful fantasies. The left, or more accurately the trump deranged are the only ones I have seen fantasize about it for random citizens and candidates for high office (accused of sexual crimes or not).
The Trump deranged are trying to normalize it in new contexts when it was abhorrent in the original one (of dehumanizing sexual deviants).
Tim Pool went on to say:
All I can say is: you better hope and pray and beg that people actually get out register people to vote, knock on doors, and come November create a red wave that eclipses all other elections and Trump wins.
That is more or less what happened. So Trump won't be getting raped in prison by animals as Sidewalker hoped. Nor will I be raped in prison for exercising my 1st amendment rights. But there are people who have already suffered assault and still rapists and those who delight in the idea of their enemies being raped.
Justice demands the villains pay dearly and the victimization stops. That requires more than prison reform. It requires that the scum who dare to openly fantasize about their enemies being raped are ostracized.
FYI I don't have the slightest interest of associating with anyone who is interested in permitting any rapes even to his or her worst enemy, similarly I have no interest in the advise or friendship of anyone who thinks playing dumb or letting it slide is in any way noble or appropriate. Obviously say your piece of that is how you feel but I will almost certainly ignore it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
I've made the point before that everyone is a criminal when there are so many absurd laws, and the fact that they can get you if they want is the definition of tyranny. Discretion does not bring justice, it brings confusion as people are railroaded when others aren't.
This is also strong evidence (as if anymore was needed) that the dogs of the state are fucking evil because no sane person could think they were doing the right thing. These are the people who enforced ineffective covid measures. These are the people who put you in prison for marijuana. These are the people who hold you for 48 hours because you didn't respect their athoriteea.
I support and endorse the violent overthrow not only of governments that violate their own constitution, but also those which abduct and kill squirrels to maintain their control over the population.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Title says it all. The punishment for the crime Kimmel committed is up to 10 years in prison.
When they say "Trump is arresting the press" (in the unlikely event that Trump serves up some justice) things like this will be the official story given to the rigged judges in the rigged venues.
Then, and I would dearly love to be able to say this, we'll say "it's not lawfare, nobody is above the law."... with a shit eating grin of course.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
No deep dive from me, just an interesting 'mystery' and wondered if this makes sense to anyone.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
What is it? Who is in it? Where is their secret mountain lair?
This topic is a place where I can collect examples which support the conclusion that there is a deep state. What is a deep state? Basically it's corruption, but when people think of corruption they think of a bunch of embezzlers out for themselves and not interacting with each other nor trying to strike back against those trying to expose them.
I am talking about an informal conspiracy to continue and expand mass theft and global domination of a power bloc (as run by these corrupt elites and which benefits them). This is associated in propaganda to a post-WW2 vision of the united states as the sole global superpower with a dark and menacing enemy in the form of Russia or China (whoever can be more easily painted as such at the time).
These people are not all cookie cutters of each other. Some are wrong. Some are evil. Some are evil and wrong. Besides when you dig into it there isn't all that much of a difference between being wrong and being evil. A more telling difference is that some think they are sacrificing the truth for the greater good, and some know they don't give a shit about the 'commoners' because they're too stupid to be trusted with the truth anyway.
There are things that the deep state wants as a whole and any nation, group, or individual who threatens those things finds themselves on the losing end of a really inexplicable amount of "bad luck". Take Donald Trump or Julian Assange for example. After practically his whole life of purportedly committing crimes he finally faces justice only now. What a coincidence? Julian Assange, on the run from the 'rules based international order' (the deep state) for the grand and heinous crime of publishing secrets, an activity which at least in the US is protected by constitutional amendment.
Wherever he went to escape somehow criminal charges appeared. What a coincidence that someone who threatens the secrets of the deep state is a rampaging rapist in Sweden but never before and also lacking evidence. What did Trump apparently do? Well besides all the evil in the world? Rape too? Wow. Something about these people who stand in the way of the deep state. They're just so rapey.
This subject is one of those where the evidence is extremely volumous but very diffuse. It's easy for skeptics to poke fun at people because it's a very broadly defined phenomenon with a thousand different smoking guns, each of which could be attributed to something localized. It takes a constant long term exposure to integrate it all and see the larger pattern.
If I were to give a historical analogy it would be the colonization of the Americas by Europeans. Unlike many I don't believe there was ever once a direct conspiracy of any size or seriousness that planned for genocide. Much of what happened happened because the european way of life allowed for greater population density and corresponding resource utilization. The way europeans lived was generally safer and more comfortable. This erodes neighboring cultures which are inferior in these fields either by attracting 'converts' or winning a war started to maintain the low efficiency use of the land.
Yet there was another aspect too, the part that is analogous to the deep state. Somehow every treaty involving the demarcation of land 'evolved' to be a shell of itself. Sovereignty turned to becoming a corrupt creature of the BIA. Nations became reservations. Reservations shrunk.
One would need to search long and hard to find a treaty with a native political entity that was not broken by the US government. In each case there is an excuse, a pretext. "they broke it first, then we fought and renegotiated"
Yet it always seems to be the way right after a new wave of migration is approved. What a coincidence? Other than confession and intercepting communication the combination of coincidences until conspiracy is the least unlikely explanation are how conspiracies are found.
There never had to be a dark smokey room where they wrung their hands and planned to conquer the west and break all the treaties they made. All that was required was for a large class of people with power to know that there were others in power who had the same interests as they did. Single conspiracies aren't required when the plan is simple enough to be understood without them or when the plan can be communicated through smaller conspiracies. Like cells in a terrorist organization if the railroad tycoon and the army officer both want to kill a particular tribe of indians it can't be said that they were on a conspiracy with the BIA or the rest of the government in DC right?
Well when the government in DC doesn't stop them, interferes with those who try to stop them, and approves putting pressure to renegotiate to remove what's left of the tribe afterwards what does that prove?
It doesn't prove they planned it, but it does prove they wanted it. That was the deep state then. Now we have our own version. Human civilization will always have a deep state when the public will not tolerate the actions in the open. Much like the devil, the deep state is never more powerful then why people laugh at the idea of its existence.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Multiple people on this site have repeatedly and absurdly claimed that since it is an "adjudicated fact" that Donald Trump raped E Jean Carroll, publicly denying that he raped her is defamation (or was it calling her a liar is defamation, as if there was a difference).
I will go search through the site for links to these instances if there is honest doubt from someone who hasn't burned up the benefit of the doubt long ago.
Some of the top reasons this is absurd:
1.) The right to confront your accusers is an ancient one in English common law, this right necessarily requires that the claims and credibility of your accusers may be attacked. Much as "freedom of the press" has been appropriately interpreted extremely broadly as a third rail (for it is a slippery slope to start curbing speech) this right has always been and ought to continue to be given a massive radius of avoidance.
2.) The right to free speech has always been interpreted to include matters of public interest and accusations of felonies are matters of public interest no matter who is accused. That is why criminal court cases are matters of public record. Within this broad protection of speech where any man or woman has the right to call anyone accusing or being accused of or claiming to have witnessed a criminal matter 'a liar' is the stacked right of the accused to defend him or herself.
Neither of these two fundamental rights are nullified by the decisions of judges, juries, presidential orders, congressional decrees or anything else. Never once has it been suggested that since a man or woman was convicted (much less found liable) for a crime that they could no longer protest their innocence under the 1st and 5th amendments (the two rights mentioned above).
Furthermore there are numerous famous examples of people maintaining their innocence to the point of publishing books from prison making their case to the public. If there was any way in hell an honest person could misconstrue the constitution, English common law, or defamation law in such a convoluted manner as to suggest such maintenance is itself defamation against witnesses and victims then we would have examples somewhere in the last 200 years of legal history.
3.) The jury was given a piece of paper which had a "rape" checkbox and they did not check it. Being hyper-technical about defamation and then hand-waiving when it comes to the definition of rape is equivocation pure and simple. It's basically saying "I don't care what the state of New York calls rape, but New York and New York juries have absolute authority over what defines defamation."
The fact that anyone could seriously make and double down on these claims make it obvious to me why we're heading for a civil war, you simply can't live in the same civilization with such people and the difference between "evil" and "ignorant" (if there is one) doesn't alleviate the situation.
When you're right you will often find confirmation in a multitude of consistencies and for the same reason when you're wrong you will often have a long and ever growing list of absurd implications and double standards facing you.
I was reminded of all this when I was listening to this video https://youtu.be/xfr3l-fUhq4?t=19 and heard the phrase "adjudicated illegal"
Yes, that did happen. A court process concluded that Jack Smith is for all intents and purposes a private citizen pretending to be a prosecutor.
Now if the fools who made the claims detailed above were consistent (lacked double standards) they would have to conclude not only that Jack Smith could not claim he was a prosecutor after that, but that if he did so it would be the federal crime of impersonating an officer of the united states. After all we can assume malicious dishonesty if an adjudicated fact is contradicted right?
You want to live in a world where it's (practically) illegal to contradict a judge/jury? Have fun, but you can start by sending Jack Smith to prison for three years.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There are certain parts that definitely get a huge thumbs up from me:
When he describes how the regulatory agencies, specifically FDA and food related are staffed by people from giant food processor corporations and how this is not a good thing my libertarian juices flowed swiftly.
Let me be more specific about my thoughts on this. I know enough about biology to know what it is that "scientists" know and don't know. They have no way to predict chemical reaction chains of enormously complex molecules that could go on for a hundred transformations. It is physically impossible (at this time) to actually have a controlled experiment for biological effect. There are too many factors that cannot be ruled out. It's like weather models but ten times worse. Every different thing someone eats, every different chemical they are exposed to, every tiny difference in gene expression, every virus, every persistent bacteria THEY ARE ALL POTENTIAL FACTORS!
Since I understand this my analysis of specific medical/biological claims have been somewhat confusing for people who don't understand. I trust the experimental data when it says a correlation IS found. You take aspirin, your blood pressure goes down (or something). You take penicillin the bacteria die and the white blood cell count goes down. That sort of thing. The factors are all still there but correlation can be established simply by looking at two (or some finite) number of objectively measurable quantities.
However whenever someone makes a claim about what could not be (or is not) happening I become hyper suspicious. Hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin does not help covid for example. How do you know? What variables did you control for? Did you control for them all (no you didn't I promise).
It is an excellent example of where the asymmetrical chasm between positive burden of proof vs negative can be vast.
Bringing us to the method by which our government determines chemicals are safe. Basically they can't. They can eliminate the direct and simple correlations but that's it. In ancient China they used to drink mercury because they thought it would help. It doesn't, it hurts, but it hurts in such a delayed and conditional manner that they could not see the correlation. The same with Roman lead plumbing.
What we do when we test an artificial preservative or pesticide is more informed but ultimately we are vulnerable in the same way. RFK's point about the explosion of chronic illness cannot be brushed away. There are alternative hypotheses, the simplest of which is that we are subject to retroviruses which have wrecked our metabolic control systems combined with 'doctors' manufacturing their own job security by diagnosing everyone with subjective diseases.
It does need to be explained though and the hypothesis that there is some set of those artificial chemicals we have been using that is causing this is plausible not withstanding those (as I described) far from conclusive negative studies.
Bringing it back home, if there is anyone to mistrust on the matter it is the clearly easily and fully corrupted federal bureaucracy. It would be a miracle if the DOJ, EPA, CDC, and so many others are full of lying incompetent crooks (swamp monsters), but the food regulatory agencies were magically pure and above reproach.
A moral leader can control corruption for a time, but the stable long term solution is a system that motivates accuracy through self-interest, this is often best accomplished by an adversarial system, truth is found in the debate.
BTW this is what a candidate talking about policy looks like. It's not "democracy" that is choosing Harris over him.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Couldn't be more pleased with this choice. Debate people who give a shit instead of a drugged up senile corrupt puppet zombie (Biden).
Looks like the libertarian party is trying to incite an insurrection:
We’re Taking the Capital by StormWith an unapologetically anarchic spirit, we’ve defied the establishment by assembling a lineup of speakers who challenge the status quo and champion true freedom. We’re lining up promotions that symbolize our rejection of government control, offering attendees a taste of defiance. The debates, a battleground for radical ideas, will ignite the flames of rebellion in every heart present. And as the establishment trembles, we’ll raise a defiant toast at the reception for our chosen presidential and vice-presidential candidates, heralding the dawn of a new era of individual autonomy and liberty. This convention will stand as a testament to the indomitable spirit of libertarianism, ready to shatter the chains of oppression.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Need to kill a political opponent? Well you could send your goons to "convict" him and then he just happens to die in custody, or you could "convict" him and then let the assassins go after him.
You know, whatever works. Just remember USA is always democratic and the people the Pentagon doesn't like never are!
P.S. Unlike Underdog's misinformation, this is based in fact.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I can feel IWRA itching, frothing at the mouth almost, to spread this misinformation. So I thought I would do it for him.
Trump recently promised to bathe in and drink all the blood of his political enemies, the orange lord upon sat upon a dark throne adding "I'm basically Hitler, I was not talking about auto manufacturing and you know it. The bloodbath will be wild my precious white nationalist"
He then began kicking a baby seal.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Just a thread where I can dump all the little puzzle pieces that each individually fail to impress certain brainwashed segments of the population. It's about the big picture and the 'context' of how everything together just kinda means something more you know?
To start us off is this (democrat politician was told someone voted in her name):
Now I encourage inquiring minds to think a little bit ahead here. Which is the more insightful:
A) Well ok everything is fine, they caught the double ballot and she voted with a provisional. When they confirm it's her that's the ballot they'll use. No harm no foul. This does not evidence any problem what so ever.
B) If she had not tried to vote, would the fraudulent ballot have counted?
No time limits, but there is a wrong answer.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Some weeks ago a certain poster named Double_R explicitly denied that "denying a crime" was defamation. This is of course obvious, but at the time he was trying to gaslight people into thinking that Donald Trump said something else about EJC besides denying a crime that was somehow defamatory.
Well now comes MSNBC and their "legal experts" to make it very clear, that denying wrongdoing is in fact defamation (so long as you're orange).
"$91 million, based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of, I knew nothing about her."
The treasonous criminals impersonating officers of the court must be punished. Pardons and reversals are not enough. THERE MUST BE CONSEQUENCES FOR ATTACKS.
If EJC is not a public figure, and denying that she was raped is defamation, then sue me:
EJC lied. She was not raped.
Why have I not just defamed her?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
It seemed to get the votes, but people are still acting like the rules haven't changed. Why?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
"It's my dad" (paraphrasing) - Hunter Biden
For some this is old news. For others it represents a severe cognitive dissonance after years of blind denial of the evidence.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Viva Frei saying exactly what I've been saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESBq98-MUoM
Almost like it's "common sense" or in other words "basic stuff".
The fact is that Biden has met all the elements of the crime they're charging Donald Trump with (according to special prosecutor Hur).
Furthermore there was the destruction of evidence by an associate of Biden's after the investigation began, which according to some people is obstruction of justice.
They simply "decline to prosecute" and choose to construe Biden's motives as pure despite the exact same (alleged) behavior and the exact same elements of the crime.
This is what a "two tiered justice system" is. It is not and cannot be "the rule of law" for a rule with exceptions is no rule at all.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
What he said at 1:20 "There seems to be a cure for Trump Derangement Syndrome"
Side effects include bringing your nation to the brink of collapse and may not work in all cases, ask your doctor about: Having no fucking money because everything is too damn expensive
Note: I am not legally allowed to criticize the government because that's what nazis do isn't it. Those freaking anarchists hate state authority. Anyway I need to remind you this is anecdotal and Bidenomics is an amazing success (number go up = good - Colbert)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Let's get some statistics going. It always seems to me that the left-tribe is more guilty than anyone else of whatever their prime accusations for others are. I've heard left-tribers say the inverse.
Use this thread to post all examples of when you think a faction is projecting what they are guilty of. I'll start with this:
Just shoot em in the leg Cornpop.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
For nearly a decade, in ever increasing frequency and severity left-tribers in control of state governments have violated the 2nd amendment of the US constitution AND federal court confirmations of their violation.
They try to ban guns (de facto, regardless of their claims). The supreme court tells them "that's unconstitutional" and these left-tribe insurrectionists take that as a cue to write a new law which does the exact same thing as it buys them another 16 months for it to percolate to the supreme court.
In other words they're calling the bluff of the US constitution: Supreme court? How many divisions do they have?
There are no repercussions for violating the US constitution. The very worst that happens is that after long delays you are told "stop, and don't do it again" by less than a hundred people in black robes who never show themselves in public.
When mayors declared their cities "sanctuary cities" they were publicly announcing their intention to give aid and comfort to persons committing federal crimes. Thus impeding official proceedings. That is, by the most recent definition of insurrection, insurrection.
At last, the right-tribe leadership has begun to show the first inklings of understanding the true nature of the system we find ourselves in. At last they are asking "you and what army?"
Now Trump didn't send in the army to seize any "sanctuary" cities, but under left-tribe logic he could have. Biden may send in the troops for this, but it doesn't matter who acts first because the act will happen or the supreme court will become meaningless followed shortly by the complete collapse of federal authority.
Be it collapse into pathetic powerlessness or civil war, either outcome is preferable to the inane slavery of pretending we are living in a nation of laws.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Well I've made my decision. I need to re-register as a republican so I can vote for Vivek in the primary. I've waited to see how he would evolve in response to talking to people and he is the best-chance deep-state-killer that I know about.
A) Trump talks a lot, but when he had power he did not impress. Even if Jan 6 was a hopeful plan of the deep state, it's something Trump handed them. He should have used the military long before that day instead of hoping a bunch of angry people would have changed the block-head Pence's behavior.
B) Vivek is thinking strategically about the deep state. He is throwing out theories about what they might be planning and that is the very foundation of forming a strategy. Trump never does this. He knows they're against him, but he doesn't know how they'll attack and he doesn't do anything about it even when he knows (such as election fraud)
C) Trump said "no retribution, I'll be too busy". That is unacceptable. The instinct for revenge serves an evolutionary purpose. To destroy predators before they strike again. It applies to lions. It applies to thieves and murderers, It applies to the people of the deep state.
Through the apparatus of civilization law is the organized fulfillment of this function, hopefully rendering it obsolete; but when the law becomes a weapon of the predators the instinct becomes proper again. Which is not to say retribution needs to be any more extra-legal than what the left-tribe has already endorsed. Indeed if judged by their own standards we could probably imprison around 50,000 of them for three years without trial.
After that simply pass a law that jury selection for a federal crime must be drawn from a nation-wide pool, nullify all convictions where that wasn't the case since 2016, and try/retry everyone. Anyone who isn't found guilty again will be entitled to compensation at the expense of those cops, judges, prosecutors, and juries which victimized them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Some left-wingers insurrected by entering restricted areas of the capitol building.
I'm going to say Joe Biden encouraged this. Therefore according to the new interpretation of the 14th ammendment he gave aid and comfort to enemies of the constitution. Therefore he isn't president, making him an unenelected figurehead who can't be president even if he was elected.
Let's see if they get 20 years in jail...
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
So uh, why was Harrison Floyd denied bail?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
In keeping with DART tradition I'll start with the clip that evoked this comment: https://rumble.com/v36ph89-joe-rogan-points-out-the-left-is-pro-war-the-right-and-left-have-flipped.html
Many have asked how I know there is such a thing as a "deep state" and can infer its motives. This is how, if these were organic interests created by the world views and values of political tribes they wouldn't switch so rapidly and with such perfect inverse images.
George Bush was a deep state puppet. Colin Powell and Cheney were probably deep state influencers.
Obama either puppet or influencer.
Trump was not deep state and impeded them
Biden is either a puppet or influencer, probably used to be influencer
This is the true dynamic of our age. The social issues of "conservative" vs "liberal" is a puppet show for the ignorant masses. The only real choice is between deep state and non-deep state.
Only the policy on military spending, inflation, and foreign domination matter to the deep state. Only those who threaten that agenda are labeled racists. Only those who threaten that agenda are so "dangerous" as to wararnt subversion of elections beyond mass propaganda.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
5000 characters really? Well I know I'll have to do this in the future and can make it pretty next time.
#1 - Pro - Definition of "Better": Sad that it has to be said, tells you something about the shenanigans that go on around here. (comment only)
#1 - Pro - ADRESSING SAFETY CONCERNS: Essentially the claim is that the risk exists but is not substantial per joule produced (specifically compared with coal).
#1 - Pro - WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY CAN AND SHOULD REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS - Nuclear plants has a high energy output: Claims nuclear power plants are powerful, while this is certainly colloquially true the kind of figures that would actually support Pro's case here would be watt/$ maintenance, watt/$ construction, or maybe watt/land area used. If Con fails to make this point this analysis won't affect scoring.
#1 - Pro - WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY CAN AND SHOULD REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS - Nuclear energy is far more fuel efficient than fossil fuels: This is not a fair point, one does not find uranium ingots lying around. A fair comparison is the energy density of uranium bearing ores vs coal or oil. Obviously it would depend on the ore, but this analysis oversimplified. If Con fails to make this point this analysis won't affect scoring.
#1 - Pro - WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY CAN AND SHOULD REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS - Nuclear reliability and longevity: The point is well taken however one of the quotations from a citation is misleading. If X costs 10% of Y in every meaningful way it doesn't matter if X only produces half the time Y does. Only the very smallest country has so few power plants that they cannot alternate and average out. Nations share energy. A useful comparison would incorporate all variables into an average power output and compare costs. If Con fails to make this point this analysis won't affect scoring.
#2 - Con - Nuclear Power is not renewable: Notes that if it does replace fossil fuels the supply will be exhausted sooner than "thousands of years", I find this argument especially poor because this claim is easily susceptible to math. Assuming the previous citations of pro as to the remaining fuel supply (which are subject to many factors) did not account for increasing demand as a replacement for fossil fuels Pro gave a link https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx which has the yearly energy production breakdown. The additional nuclear fuel used would be proportional to the additional energy produced. The change would be from 10.3->(10.3+2.8 + 23.5 + 36.7) = 1:7.12 so "thousands of years"/7.11 ~= 281 years. That's 281 years to perfect fusion with no carbon emissions. "renewable" was not part of the resolution, only a better alternative and the framework made it clear that the metric of acceptability was carbon emissions. If Pro fails to make this point this analysis won't affect scoring.
In this section Con also claims "nuclear energy cannot be extracted from non-radioactive elements. I will properly explain why this is in Round 2 but Pro made it seem like all elements other than iron could be used, when in reality the sources are limited." I know off the top of my head this is false but most people wouldn't so it isn't common knowledge. We'll see what Pro does.
In this section Con claims that thorium is too precious to be used for energy because it is used for its material properties. As the owner of thoriated TIG rods I can confirm, however this shows that Con's understanding of the relative scales is off by a three or four orders of magnitude. Any controlled nuclear reaction renders the material of that reaction infinitely more valuable as an energy source than a metal. If you have enough to be making metal alloys with it you have enough to power the world for a very very long time.
#2 - Con - The devious history of nuclear energy: Claims "In fact, Pro is wrong to say NE is manageably cheaper at all," and provides a comparison between nuclear and fossil in the 80s. Pro said nuclear was cheaper than the non-carbon emitting alternatives today. He did not say it was cheaper than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not an option allowed by the resolution. This is not a scoring difference on argument because fossil fuels are excluded however I may consider it a conduct problem as it treads close to a strawman.
Con also claims in this section "Nuclear energy is sprawled with disinformation and cover-ups to enable certain interested parties that profit from its success." welcome to earth Con, on the face of it this can hardly be expected to sway a comparison between different technologies as the problem is in the men not the technology.
#2 - Con - So, why not renewable over nuclear? : Con claims "Pro has one attack on RE; they are not reliable." That is essentially accurate. If I were to make the case for nuclear watt/$ would be my first line of attack as that is what separates feasible from fantasy. I was not making the case however so this is sufficient refutation if a refutation it is.
#2 - Con says "we have to begin using very (ironically) energy-demanding means of mining the radioactive materials", if the energy produced was not thousands of times greater than the energy required to mine it would never have been a realistic option in the first place. This is a non-issue in the energy context, a case could be made that mining unnecessarily destructive but the case has not been made yet. Even coal easily pays for its own extraction.
#2 - Con goes on to say "we actually have all the drawbacks of renewable energy on top and even perhaps worse.", he did not make that case. The first drawback he mentioned was reliability and he in no way established that a combination of non-nuclear would be any more reliable than nuclear. Certainly having a combination of intermittent power sources increases reliability or more accurately increases 100 year event min power capacity (which is what we really care about). The exact same thing is true of multiple nuclear power sources, and since their base reliability is higher so is the combined reliability.
#2 - Con says "Solar panels themselves are recyclable", I do not know if pro will make this point so it may not affect scoring; but everything is recyclable given enough energy. Solar panels are not easily recycled like say asphalt or glass. Con also does not make the argument but creating a solar panel that lasts thousands of years with no maintenance is actually plausible while systems with moving parts or severe thermal stresses like windmills and nuclear reactors will never get there.
#2 - Con finally gets around to Chernobyl, saying "An entire city can become nearly permanently damaged (literally, life can't sufficiently grow back other than some funky mushrooms and any children born in the area will suffer" which I know to be false, but I have to hear it from Pro. I also need to see Pro point out that such an outcome is not a realistic worst case for a modern reactor.
So at this point Pro stands on reliability of nuclear over zero-carbon alternatives. Pro stands on safety but he admitted in that section that solar and wind are safer. Although interesting, Pro's sections on why nuclear is better than fossil are irrelevant.
Without a priority balancing formula safety vs reliability can't be resolved, I also hope to see some cost/time analysis from both sides. Note also that safety and reliability can often be bought with money.
#3 - Pro - Generally correct about the lack of rebuttable material (in a bad way for Con).
Pro says "Add in that nuclear is the lowest emitter of carbon diokside of the energy sources mentioned", this probably a dishonest way to present the information. No carbon emissions are required for nuclear, hydro, solar, or wind. If there are carbon emissions they are incidental to manufacturing and certainly don't need to be that way. Anyone can burn a bunch of oil making solar panels if they wanted but that's not inherent in the technology.
Pro appears to cite Con about Chernobyl... burn
Pro does point out that nuclear energy does not require initially radioactive elements, with sources, so my previous scoring decision is activated.
Pro points out fusion is renewable, I'd say if fusion isn't renewable nothing is. Also note that if we have fusion reactors nobody is going to need to burn anything much less hydrogen.
Pro points out solar panels cost a lot to recycle, hec they cost a lot to make; and you would need so so many to match a nuclear reactor... but I'm not Pro so let's see what the other rounds hold.
The wind turbines as they are currently being built are a total disaster, they fail when they should be designed to last for centuries, they produce sounds when they could be designed to be quiet. I would argue this is the result of artificial demand, when people want to brag about something more than they actually want that thing... but as they are being built Pro's critique stands.
Pro's points on Hydro are mostly overstated, except for pointing out some countries have more or less of the required resource. In fact having been interested in the subject I can say with confidence that almost no major hydro power flow remains untapped in the world. It's an amazing idea with very few downsides, but it's tapped out. Whatever power we have from them that's all we're getting.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
I honestly wasn't going to post this first thing but as is often the case some people just need to have their say, that's not going to change, and better here than derailing other topics.
I maintain that:
1. Bestiality is not inherently immoral
2. Anything which is not inherently immoral should not be illegal.
I'll respond to relevant arguments against those assertions. I have no burden of proof for the first statement, I do for the second and will provide an argument upon request.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society