Total posts: 618
Posted in:
-->
@Mister_Man
So I'm curious as to why so many leftists disregard objectively positive accomplishments by Trump.
No, you're not. You've already made up your mind that they do it and that the reason they're doing it is because they are dishonorable. This thread isn't a query - It's an accusation and BTW, to whatever extent leftists do these things, the left doesn't do it significantly more or less than the right does. That's how it is with most everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
I moved to a new area not too long ago. All I do is work mostly. I haven't put much effort in to improving my social life. It's not a priority for me, and honestly I don't see what benefit there would be given that spending time with friends means less time spent working.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Lots of the users here are coming from DDO. If there are new requirements for voting, then someone from DDO should be able to qualify to vote based on their DDO user account history. It would be simple to verify that by having the user send a PM from their DDO account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Juries decide that, no? They're not the government. BTW I had a big grin on my face when Bin Laden was killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
But you don't understand. Revenge can be good. It's one of life's darkest but most satisfying pleasures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Justice requires a proportionate price to pay for harms caused to others. He who unjustly takes a life gives up any right to his own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so you support an eye for an eye, and revenge? you also think the right way to say it's wrong to kill people is by killing people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
1.) He doesn’t have the constitutional power to declare an emergency when it is not an emergency.2.) It is congress that raises and appropriates money for programs - declaring a national emergency to deliberately circumvent this process is not within the power.3.) The courts will decide, or potentially it may not even go that far. Whether or not the courts are the entity that will make the ultimate decision does not change the fact that this is a blatant circumvention of presidential authority, and pretty much demonstrates the retarded hypocrisy of Republicans in general, who shit their pants in rage any time Obama signed an EO.
I would expect the legality of the whole thing to be heard quickly, likely before a DC district court judge, as has happened before with Trump's other legally questionable maneuvers.
Created:
-->
@Vader
You don't have personal knowledge of the facts and your source of the facts ( https://savejames.com/blog/ ) isn't credible. I don't believe you.
Created:
Posted in:
Resolution: "Consuming food from genetically modified organisms is essential to human life."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Meh you got me. If you read what I wrote you will see that I didn't really agree with anything but was largely being diplomatic and inquisitive. I didn't start the thread for opinions and such. It was more of sharing a feeling of pity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Well, supposing that worked, it would work only for the next generation. What about the people that are already here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It's definitely part of the solution. Yet, it's also the status quo in a lot of the places that have these problems.
Created:
Posted in:
You ever hire people? Like they need money so bad. So many so pathetic, and I don't mean that pejoratively. It makes it seem like there's something wrong with the world we live in that this is the state of things. I hear stories about people in third world countries who work in Bangladesh cutting apart great ships on the beaches with blow torches and saws to get the steel. There's no safety regulations. The workers get maimed or get exposed to poisons and asbestos. They get paid $2 a day. Jeebus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you think these "woke" billionaires like to influence government? Who do you think is really in control here? It certainly aint the common man.
They come across as cowardly, vain and insincere. With the Koch brothers you know where they stand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And no it's not a fair tax when corporations and people wealthy enough to offshore their assets are exempt and middle class families are not.
Corporations don't die. Estate tax loopholes should be closed. Their existence makes it unfair as between those who should be subject to the tax but aren't and those who are paying the tax. It doesn't make the tax itself unfair. Middle class families are exempt from the estate tax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol whatever makes you happy dealing with your jealousy. Someone else out producing you.. and then setting the entire thing on fire if they so chose to do that shouldn't cause you to lose one minute of sleep.. unless you were all eaten up on the inside with jealousy.
You really think is not a fair tax? How could you believe such a thing when inheritance is inherently an unfair thing. People acquiring vast wealth without doing anything to earn it isn't fair.
Changing the subject is dropping the argument and amounts to conceding the point. That's how I'm going to interpret what you're doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Uh oh I said something stupid and got called out now I'd better change the subject.
Fixed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You think fairness doesn't matter? What planet are you from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most people don't know how to use trusts to avoid estate taxes. Estate taxes are a tool to suppress poor people and ignorant people.It's not a fair tax at all, and anyone that supports it is either rich or a sheep.
You know what's not fair? I work my butt off to get what I get and trust fund baby over there got millions and didn't do shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you use a Nazi officer as your profile picture?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
let's spawn a generation of tens of millions of military-age men who can't find a mate because all the women are being hogged by a few rich guys. I'm sure that won't come with any sort of violent or genocidal backlash.
It's they're fault that they're poor. It's time for them to take responsibility. It's not hopeless. Perhaps they can have some happiness as servants. In the mean time I'll continue impregnating the females of my harem, living like a sultan in my mansion. It's good to be king.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
This isn't about illegals voting. This is the GOP trying to keep blacks out of the voter booths. Studies like these are made and published to foment the fear that non-citizens are voting in elections in order to justify voter ID laws which adversely impact minority voters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Withdraw your "no" vote. It can't pass without 10 votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'd be amused if everyone's stats got reset back to 0.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I think I expressed myself incorrectly, it's not even proving themselves but proving that they can take it seriously. If people truly try to do their best, if they don't forfeit the arguments and don't write obvious nonsense, don't show utter disrespect and etc, they deserve to be "professionals", even though they may lack the experience of debating per se but it shouldn't matter that much, the most important thing is showing due diligence to the process itself.At least that's how I see it.
It seems like, generally, you're looking for a way to improve the quality of the content generated by users in the debates and votes. The proposal strikes me as exclusionary without cause. Perhaps something like everyone gets a chance to engage in the professional debates but have higher standards for content and failing to meet those standards would subject users to being excluded from the professional debates for a time. Of course, account spamming might be a problem, but that may be addressed with account seasoning requirements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
This way general debates will be used for proving to have the skill and deserving to be "professional" or for general rap battles and silly debates and whatnot
I see the trouble with rap battles and silly debates, but I don't see any need for users to prove themselves. Why would the latter be desirable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
fuck you
Haha this is exactly what I was looking for. You're so easy.
Created:
Posted in:
Tell that to the infant that receives a lethal injection to the skull
Prenatal life has no value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Late term abortions are rather uncommon. It's a low-impact policy issue that the right cares too much about. If the left was wise it would let the right set policy for late term abortions in exchange for the left setting policy on issues that really do matter, like tax policy or health care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That sounds perfectly reasonable.My main concern is over the question of, is it more important to "punish" the offender, or is it more important to train them to be a better member of society?
Both are important. The relative importance of each would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, if it was someone sentenced to death for murder then the importance of punishment would be high and there would be little purpose in rehabilitation. On the other hand, someone given a large sentence for a non-violent drug offense... Rehabilitation would be important because this person will eventually re-enter society and punishment would be less important than in a murder case because the ultimate victims - drug addicts - bear much of the responsibility for their problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Zoiks. Ok, so I agree with your "The Outer Limits" version.Would you have any recommendations about exactly how unpleasant such an experience should be?
Part of the punishment for crime is the opportunity cost - The lost years that a prisoner won't be able to spend doing something better. This is part of the price - Part of justice. If prison becomes instant, then that price would not be paid. Sentencing policy was made made under the assumption that there would be this price to pay. However, payment may be tendered in alternative currency. The experience would have to be different in some way to make up for the fact that the prisoner now retains those years... the scales of justice must not me made to tilt one way by implementing this policy. It wouldn't necessarily have to be more unpleasant, but perhaps the experience could be longer with standard unpleasantness. For example, a prisoner may have to spend 3 years in virtual prison to count as 1 year in actual prison. Something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, it sounds like what you're talking about - In the original post - Is that the memory of an experience is implanted. There's no actual experience that was endured. You then said this:
If you could give convicted criminals an experience of 20 years of "whatever you choose", you could make it as severe as you wish.
You know, maybe it was just an oversight and it wasn't what you were trying to communicate, but we wouldn't be giving them the experience if we were applying the original idea from the OP - Memory implants. We would be giving them merely the memory of such an experience. So, an example of this being written more consistent with your OP would be something like this -
If you could give convicted criminals the memory of an experience of 20 years of "whatever you choose", you could make it as severe as you wish.
There was an Outer Limits episode - "The Sentence" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sentence_(The_Outer_Limits) https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5cfyoc ) that dealt with something like this in a fashion that I'm more agreeable with. In the episode the mind actually experiences the sentence in a simulation - Something like the matrix. After the simulation is complete the prisoner returns to reality without much time lost from his actual life. Contrast that with the "Total Recall" idea of implanted a memory but where the prisoner's mind never actually goes through the experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A memory of an experience of 20 years.What do you have after 20 years of experience?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Insufficiently severe.Please explain.If you could give convicted criminals an experience of 20 years of "whatever you choose", you could make it as severe as you wish.If you are only concerned with "missing 20 years of your friends and family", well, a lot of these convicts don't have a lot of "friends and family" to miss in the first place, and even if they did, would you approve of a sentence of 20 real actual years of them in physical isolation, where they had daily access to some sort of virtual reality that allowed them to "live" a "normal life" that would prepare them for their release? I'm imagining some sort of TNG style "holodeck" where they would be instantly ejected if they performed any anti-social or criminal actions. Kinda like - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlaNKKHzNKQ
In your OP you said "you get the memories of 20 years in a state penitentiary." Here you say "an experience of 20 years". That's not the same thing. They must actually experience the punishment, not merely have a memory of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
There are appropriate venues for voicing your opinion on that matter. I don't think doing it while on the job at a retirement home is one of them, especially when it's at the residents' expense. I don't see a credible challenge to the constitutionality of the statute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Do you understand that the applicability of this law is confined to interractions between long-term care facility or facility staff and residents of long-term care facilities? That's pretty narrow and state regulation of speech controlling narrow interractions such as this has long been the norm and hasn't been found to be unconstitutional. For example, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act prohibits regulates the speech between debt collectors and debtors. https://goo.gl/TVZbzu Do you think this regulation of the speech of debt collectors is "a clear violation of the First Amendment" ? If you do not, then how is the California speech restriction different from the federal speech restriction within the context of the first amendment?
Created:
Posted in:
They're getting rid of religion. Perhaps it's not a bad idea.
Created:
Posted in:
The code in question:
"[...] it shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to [...] Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."California Health and Safety Code section 1439.51(a)(5) https://goo.gl/KMi6qY
That's the policy. It gets miscontrued too often.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Do you think revolutionary socialists should have the right to advocate their political views? We don't. It's a federal offense with a 20 year prison sentence. Some free speech we got here. Guess bsh can't fix that one though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
You're correct in pointing that out and the example scenario isn't realistic. I exaggerated intentionally for illustrative purposes, but even with a more realistically attenuated impact, as you're suggesting, there may still be some "natural selection" going on in the marketplace of ideas and usership, rewarding hatred rather than merit. Ideas can evolve teeth and claws, so to speak.
Anyway, I'm not bsh and I don't necessarily agree with what he does. The CoC lacks clarity in many respects and users would have better notice as to what is and isn't prohibited regarding hate speech if the CoC hate speech prohibition was modeled after, or perhaps even copied from, the clearest speech codes available. Though, I'm not convinced that bsh is using a double standard as I haven't seen anything substantiating that. The topic here is related to and probably caused by the bsh things but more generalized.
I agree that there's probably some correlation between people who can't handle debates and people who are offended by hate speech. It sounds like you're saying that we don't want people in the kitchen who can't take the heat, but how hot should it be in our kitchen? If they can't handle debates then it's doubtful that they'd sign up for a debating site in the first place. Even if they did, they would likely be weeded out by the debating environment which would make the hate speech functionally redundant - With the added cost of the loss of users who can handle debates but are driven away by hate speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The primary consequence I cited was erosion of the userbase. I suspect that diversity in opinions is related to that in a more complicated way but I didn't articulate how because at this point its just a suspician. But if you'd like to understand my thinking it goes like this:
Say you have an online community with rampant hate speech. There are 3 schools of thought within this community; Groups A, B and C. The hate speech from group A will offend groups B and C. The hate speech from group B will offend groups A and C. The hate speech from group C will offend groups A and B. As users are offended, they stop participating in the community. Eventually, what will happen? Well, here's what's going to happen - The group that makes the most hostile and offensive environment will drive the other 2 groups off the site until what remains is a homogenous community of one school of thought. One school of thought - There's not much diversity in opinion coming from that situation.
The example is illustrative and not argumentative, and erosion of the userbase is sufficient to cause a decrease in diversity of opinions simply because less users = less opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The idea that enforcing 'hate speech' moderation will increase the diversity of ideas is just frightfully dim.
But that's not what I said, is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
You don't see the consequences. This is a debating website. It relies on user generated content and fulfills its purpose best when there is a broad diversity of opinions within the user base. Hate speech may create an environment that's intimidating, hostile or offensive to reasonable people. Users will leave in response to that environment.
If there happens to be any social value to a particular example of hate speech then it's incidental, not intrinsic. That value can be had without the consequences by expressing oneself in a way that isn't intimidating, hostile or offensive.
Created: