Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Republican Thunderdome
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

The Republican Thunderdome
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
omphaloskepsis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 5920 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote omphaloskepsis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 07:54
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

Well, in the 50s there was McCarthyism for example. Not sure what your take is on "story time drag hour" or children's sex changes regarding freedom (I hadn't even known what "story time drag hour" is before looking it up, not sure whether everyone in the US - where I am not - knows that), and I have honestly no idea what would have happened in case of COVID. We can speculate a lot, but my view would be some things were more and some less free back then, which doesn't really resonate with the frog story.


Let me clarify children's sex changes.
1. I was pointing out that America was different 70 years ago,  in an attempt to answer your question on why politicians did not suddenly crush freedoms.  Stealing freedom is a gradual process.
2. More to the point, in certain areas of America...if a teacher and a child say that the child is the opposite sex  (born in the wrong body)...then the parents have no say over the sex change.  If the parents disagree and refuse to cooperate, the parents could lose their child to the state.  That would be a loss of the parent's right to raise a child as they see fit.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/california-is-poised-to-take-children-away-from-parents-who-won-t-help-them-get-sex-changes/ar-AA1csvxy

The politicians may have strayed too far over their skies, concerning the Covid ordeal.  In other words, Politicians went too far too fast...and the public noticed.  The COVID lockdown example suggests that a population doesn't readily accept sudden drastic, draconian change.  That's the point of the frog story. Wink

McCarthyism is an example of a politician applying sudden draconian change.  The public would not stand for it. Actors were blackballed from Hollywood.  The wave of backlash was like a tsunami. The wave started small but was powerful and by the time it broke on the political shore...McCarthy drowned like Hitler in history.



Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 17 2024 at 08:07
Back to Top
suitkees View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2020
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 8731 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote suitkees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 10:04
You're Gish galopping again.
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

2. More to the point, in certain areas of America...if a teacher and a child say that the child is the opposite sex  (born in the wrong body)...then the parents have no say over the sex change.  If the parents disagree and refuse to cooperate, the parents could lose their child to the state.  That would be a loss of the parent's right to raise a child as they see fit.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/california-is-poised-to-take-children-away-from-parents-who-won-t-help-them-get-sex-changes/ar-AA1csvxy

It is quite stunning and indecent how you almost systematically distort information. Well, you could blame your source (where msn gets it from) this time, but it is you who choose to rely on not very reliable sources when it comes to factual reporting. Let's see how a more reliable source present things and one of their tactics is to go directly to the person who introduced the bill, the Democrat Lori Wilson:
Originally posted by <a href=https://apnews.com/article/california-gender-affirm-transgender-nonbinary-children-parents-50815672a60690099ecfed71c738e911 target=_blank rel=nofollow>AP News</a> AP News wrote:

Wilson said gender affirmation could include letting children play with toys associated with their gender identity, getting their nails painted or wearing their hair at a length that feels comfortable. The bill does not lay out specific requirements related to gender-affirming surgeries, which minors in California cannot undergo without a parent’s consent.




Edited by suitkees - April 17 2024 at 10:06

The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Back to Top
omphaloskepsis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 5920 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote omphaloskepsis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 10:26
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

You're Gish galopping again.
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

2. More to the point, in certain areas of America...if a teacher and a child say that the child is the opposite sex  (born in the wrong body)...then the parents have no say over the sex change.  If the parents disagree and refuse to cooperate, the parents could lose their child to the state.  That would be a loss of the parent's right to raise a child as they see fit.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/california-is-poised-to-take-children-away-from-parents-who-won-t-help-them-get-sex-changes/ar-AA1csvxy

It is quite stunning and indecent how you almost systematically distort information. Well, you could blame your source (where msn gets it from) this time, but it is you who choose to rely on not very reliable sources when it comes to factual reporting. Let's see how a more reliable source present things and one of their tactics is to go directly to the person who introduced the bill, the Democrat Lori Wilson:
Originally posted by <a href=https://apnews.com/article/california-gender-affirm-transgender-nonbinary-children-parents-50815672a60690099ecfed71c738e911 target=_blank rel=nofollow>AP News</a> AP News wrote:

Wilson said gender affirmation could include letting children play with toys associated with their gender identity, getting their nails painted or wearing their hair at a length that feels comfortable. The bill does not lay out specific requirements related to gender-affirming surgeries, which minors in California cannot undergo without a parent’s consent.

Gish galloping is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

I apologize if you feel two or three arguments are excessive. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the term before you use it.  Have you ever seen a debate where a participant relied upon a lone argument?  If so, please provide proof.

If you define excessive, I will limit my arguments to the parameters that you provide.  That said, I think there are folks in PA who can handle more than one argument.  What am I to do when a member asks me multiple questions? Multiple questions may require more than one argument or answer.

Another thing, I wasn't aware that this thread was a debate and that you are the debate moderator.  Please provide your debate rules, Suitkees and I will abide by your rules. Wink 




Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 17 2024 at 10:27
Back to Top
suitkees View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2020
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 8731 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote suitkees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 10:36
It is two here, three there, etc. If the term Gish gallop doesn't seem to you appropriate here, then OK, but you are regularly bringing in points that only have accessory relevance or are unique details/examples that you extrapolate to give them general validity. That's just putting up smoke-screens to hide your lack of logic.

And I'm not the moderator, but when I see someone distort facts I'll point it out. Apparently you find it more important to point out to a possible misuse of a term - deflecting attention again - then to react to the point that you are spreading disinformation.

The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14110 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 10:38
suitkees' major point was that facts are misrepresented in the linked msn article, which certainly doesn't inspire confidence by having a title saying rather different things from the article body, which itself is obviously opinionated ("terrible" etc.).
Back to Top
omphaloskepsis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 5920 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote omphaloskepsis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 10:46
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

It is two here, three there, etc. If the term Gish gallop doesn't seem to you appropriate here, then OK, but you are regularly bringing in points that only have accessory relevance or are unique details/examples that you extrapolate to give them general validity. That's just putting up smoke-screens to hide your lack of logic.

And I'm not the moderator, but when I see someone distort facts I'll point it out. Apparently you find it more important to point out to a possible misuse of a term - deflecting attention again - then to react to the point that you are spreading disinformation.


I claim that freedoms are being gradually stolen by the American government.  Freedoms are being stolen by multiple governments.  That said, let's limit this to America...keep it simple.

1. Do you disagree?  If so provide your argument.  Let's hear your logic, Suitkees. Wink

My logic?  The government is using social media to censor free speech.  The government (mostly democrats) continuously attacks the 2nd Amendment.   I kept it to two examples so as not to overwhelm you with gish galloping.Wink
Back to Top
suitkees View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2020
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 8731 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote suitkees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 11:37
^ So, again a deflection, and again two new points without factual back-up and still no reaction to your disinformation... No, I'm not going to continue this game, but
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

My logic?  The government is using social media to censor free speech. 
 
This disinformation was already debunked in the other thread (you're very persistent in believing falsehoods...).

Quote I claim that freedoms are being gradually stolen by the American government.  Freedoms are being stolen by multiple governments.  That said, let's limit this to America...keep it simple.

1. Do you disagree?  If so provide your argument.  Let's hear your logic, Suitkees. Wink

One of the problems is that you often take your "claims" (opinions) for facts... but yes, I disagree. 

First, I don't think that it is reasonable to say that your government is stealing your freedoms (apart from the debunked free speech censorship, you may have other examples?). It is organizing your society in a way it thinks best. No government will always have 100% support for all of its policies, but in representative democracies we can assume that those policies are supported by a large part of the population.

Second, and to elaborate, I think you have a very simplistic idea of what is "freedom", but you have wisely withheld yourself from defining it. A freedom for one often impedes on the freedom of an other. For example, the freedom of a minor to affirm his gender identity vs. the freedom of the parents to limit that.
You also have individual freedoms vs. shared freedoms, i.e. the interests of a society/community. For example the individual freedom of not wearing a mask during a pandemic vs. the protection of a society and minimizing contamination as much as possible by imposing mask wearing.

Then, we can have the discussion of what is more important: individual freedom or the freedom of a society? I think it is all about finding a right balance. But what is "right" depends on where one wants to put more value in: individual freedom or shared freedom. Me or We? There is thus not one "freedom" but many ways in which freedom(s) can be organized - and have to be organized if you want to "make" society. And those ways depend on ideology. etc. That's what democracy is about, I think: to come to an understanding to how a society can be organized to guarantee its cohesion, and finding the right balance regarding the freedoms of individuals.

I am someone who values the cohesion of a society very much and find it normal that individual freedoms are thus sometimes limited. The interests of a country are more important than the interests of an individual in that country, in my opinion. Apparently there are many Americans who find individual freedom more important than their country (and still dare to call themselves "patriots"...). Selfishness seems to be a core value to them. Not for me.
It all depends of course what we are talking about. I condemn censorship, but find it normal when a government fights disinformation. In general, things are not binary but more complex. Freedom is one of those very complex things.

Oh, and why are you winking to me so often...? Embarrassed




Edited by suitkees - April 17 2024 at 11:44

The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Back to Top
Archisorcerus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2022
Location: Izmir
Status: Offline
Points: 2484 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Archisorcerus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 11:38
Josh Wink - Higher State of Consciousness
Back to Top
Mirakaze View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog & JR/F/Canterbury Teams

Joined: December 17 2019
Location: (redacted)
Status: Offline
Points: 3568 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (4) Thanks(4)   Quote Mirakaze Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 12:51
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

2. More to the point, in certain areas of America...if a teacher and a child say that the child is the opposite sex  (born in the wrong body)...then the parents have no say over the sex change.  If the parents disagree and refuse to cooperate, the parents could lose their child to the state.  That would be a loss of the parent's right to raise a child as they see fit.

A good friend of mine who lives in Texas was kept as a prisoner at home by their abusive parents for years, separated from all their social contacts, denied phone and internet access and constantly berated, ridiculed and emotionally manipulated... ALL because they identify as a different gender than what they were assigned at birth. After a year of this (after they had attempted suicide because they couldn't bear the abuse and isolation) a judge actually awarded the parents a guardianship over their child (who is in their 20s, mind you) because they claimed that my friend as someone with ASD was supposedly at risk of falling prey to "gender ideology" and had no capacity to make their own life's decisions. Adult Protective Services completely ignored the issue and the police only came to the aid of the parents (even going as far as harrassing someone who came to my friend's defence).
Is this the sort of "freedom" that you promote and encourage? Because it is what you're unwittingly perpetuating by spouting this paranoid nonsense: minority groups being vilified and treated with suspicion, people being prevented from leading the lives they want to.
While we're on the topic, this is what pisses me off the most about this whole "uniparty" rhetoric: the Democratic Party has its own slew of problems but certain groups of the US citizenry (particularly but certainly not limited to gender and sexual minorities) stand to lose a significant amount more if the Republican Party wins in 2024, in terms of access to medicine, reproductive rights, voting rights, legal recognition of their identities or partnerships, even just a basic sense of security; earlier this year when I visited my boyfriend who also lives in Texas I was genuinely afraid to use a public bathroom because I thought someone might harrass or even try to press charges against me. Election outcomes might not affect you personally very much but there are absolutely important stakes here for a lot of people.
Freelance composer, accepting commissions | New album!
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64376 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 13:30
^ R i g h t   O n


Go to Hell Right Wing Fascists.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Hrychu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 03 2013
Location: poland?
Status: Offline
Points: 4157 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hrychu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 17 2024 at 13:35
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Go to Hell Right Wing Fascists.
cringe; but agreed



Edited by Hrychu - April 17 2024 at 13:50
Bez pierdolenia sygnał zerwie, to w realia wychodź w hełmie!
Back to Top
omphaloskepsis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 5920 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote omphaloskepsis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 18 2024 at 05:00
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

^ So, again a deflection, and again two new points without factual back-up and still no reaction to your disinformation... No, I'm not going to continue this game, but
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

My logic?  The government is using social media to censor free speech. 
 
This disinformation was already debunked in the other thread (you're very persistent in believing falsehoods...).

Quote I claim that freedoms are being gradually stolen by the American government.  Freedoms are being stolen by multiple governments.  That said, let's limit this to America...keep it simple.

1. Do you disagree?  If so provide your argument.  Let's hear your logic, Suitkees. Wink

One of the problems is that you often take your "claims" (opinions) for facts... but yes, I disagree. 

First, I don't think that it is reasonable to say that your government is stealing your freedoms (apart from the debunked free speech censorship, you may have other examples?). It is organizing your society in a way it thinks best. No government will always have 100% support for all of its policies, but in representative democracies we can assume that those policies are supported by a large part of the population.

Second, and to elaborate, I think you have a very simplistic idea of what is "freedom", but you have wisely withheld yourself from defining it. A freedom for one often impedes on the freedom of an other. For example, the freedom of a minor to affirm his gender identity vs. the freedom of the parents to limit that.
You also have individual freedoms vs. shared freedoms, i.e. the interests of a society/community. For example the individual freedom of not wearing a mask during a pandemic vs. the protection of a society and minimizing contamination as much as possible by imposing mask wearing.

Then, we can have the discussion of what is more important: individual freedom or the freedom of a society? I think it is all about finding a right balance. But what is "right" depends on where one wants to put more value in: individual freedom or shared freedom. Me or We? There is thus not one "freedom" but many ways in which freedom(s) can be organized - and have to be organized if you want to "make" society. And those ways depend on ideology. etc. That's what democracy is about, I think: to come to an understanding to how a society can be organized to guarantee its cohesion, and finding the right balance regarding the freedoms of individuals.

I am someone who values the cohesion of a society very much and find it normal that individual freedoms are thus sometimes limited. The interests of a country are more important than the interests of an individual in that country, in my opinion. Apparently there are many Americans who find individual freedom more important than their country (and still dare to call themselves "patriots"...). Selfishness seems to be a core value to them. Not for me.
It all depends of course what we are talking about. I condemn censorship, but find it normal when a government fights disinformation. In general, things are not binary but more complex. Freedom is one of those very complex things.

Oh, and why are you winking to me so often...? Embarrassed




Just because you say my claims have been debunked does not make it so. After Elon Musk bought Twitter, he released communication between the FBI and previous Twitter management.  The FBI told Twitter to censor and ban people/organizations from Alex Jones to censoring New York Post.  The New York Post was censored because they reported about the Hunter Biden laptop.  Before the 2020 election, the FBI and Twitter said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.  Twitter did what the FBI said and censored the New York Post. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube banned Alex Jones within less than a week of each other. 

My political definition of Freedom is the US Constitution and the Amendments.  The above example is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Read the Constitution and Amendments and you will glean an idea of my definition of freedom.  

First you say I'm gish galloping.  Then you ask me if I have other examples. I have hundreds...maybe thousands.   Read the 2nd Amendment.  It's a crime to carry a firearm in certain areas of America. The Second Amendment is federal and supposed to be upheld across America.  I don't think Hunter Biden should be charged with false statements made when purchasing a gun.  

This week Congress just passed a bill that makes it easier to spy on Americans.  That violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Congress is not supposed to be able to pass laws that violate the Constitution.  When your government spies on you that dampens your freedoms. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fourth-times-the-charm-house-passes-controversial-spying-bill-after-bitter-infighting/ar-BB1lwDyx







Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 18 2024 at 05:31
Back to Top
omphaloskepsis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 5920 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote omphaloskepsis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 18 2024 at 05:15
Originally posted by Mirakaze Mirakaze wrote:

Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

2. More to the point, in certain areas of America...if a teacher and a child say that the child is the opposite sex  (born in the wrong body)...then the parents have no say over the sex change.  If the parents disagree and refuse to cooperate, the parents could lose their child to the state.  That would be a loss of the parent's right to raise a child as they see fit.

A good friend of mine who lives in Texas was kept as a prisoner at home by their abusive parents for years, separated from all their social contacts, denied phone and internet access and constantly berated, ridiculed and emotionally manipulated... ALL because they identify as a different gender than what they were assigned at birth. After a year of this (after they had attempted suicide because they couldn't bear the abuse and isolation) a judge actually awarded the parents a guardianship over their child (who is in their 20s, mind you) because they claimed that my friend as someone with ASD was supposedly at risk of falling prey to "gender ideology" and had no capacity to make their own life's decisions. Adult Protective Services completely ignored the issue and the police only came to the aid of the parents (even going as far as harrassing someone who came to my friend's defence).
Is this the sort of "freedom" that you promote and encourage? Because it is what you're unwittingly perpetuating by spouting this paranoid nonsense: minority groups being vilified and treated with suspicion, people being prevented from leading the lives they want to.
While we're on the topic, this is what pisses me off the most about this whole "uniparty" rhetoric: the Democratic Party has its own slew of problems but certain groups of the US citizenry (particularly but certainly not limited to gender and sexual minorities) stand to lose a significant amount more if the Republican Party wins in 2024, in terms of access to medicine, reproductive rights, voting rights, legal recognition of their identities or partnerships, even just a basic sense of security; earlier this year when I visited my boyfriend who also lives in Texas I was genuinely afraid to use a public bathroom because I thought someone might harrass or even try to press charges against me. Election outcomes might not affect you personally very much but there are absolutely important stakes here for a lot of people.


There have been laws for over a hundred years that protect children from parental abuse.  Most parents love their children and treat them fine. Just because a parent doesn't want his son's penis cut off doesn't mean they're a bad parent. Once a child lawfully becomes an adult...they can cut off any body part they want. 

After reading your post, I have to ask you.  Do you think that a nine-year-old girl should be able to have sex with a 40-year-old pedophile...just because the child says they want to have sex with the pedophile?  Do you think eight-year-olds should be able to drink as much alcohol as they want?   

If your Texas friend story is true...then it would be in the media. A person in their twenties is not a child.  The only situation that I can imagine, where judge awarding parents guardianship over a twenty-something person would be if the person was mentally or physically unable to take care of themself.  I'm an RN. I work with the elderly. Often, guardianship is granted to children of the elderly who can't take care of themselves. O

I've lived in Texas for my entire life. I have never been harassed in a public bathroom.  Do you have a phobia of public bathrooms?  Why did you think you would be harassed?  I've never had charges pressed against me for using the bathroom. Wink

I never said election outcomes did not affect me.  When it comes to Uniparty...They vote together on War and Spying.  Uni-party members may differ on cultural issues...otherwise, the Dems would look no different from the GOP.   The US government spends as much as the rest of the World on war.  Spying gives the government power over the people.  The government is supposed to work for the people.  Not the other way around.




Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 18 2024 at 05:51
Back to Top
suitkees View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2020
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 8731 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote suitkees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 18 2024 at 08:02
Ermm
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

After Elon Musk bought Twitter, he released communication between the FBI and previous Twitter management.  The FBI told Twitter to censor and ban everybody from Alex Jones to censoring New York Post.
Debunked.

Quote The New York Post was censored because they reported about the Hunter Biden laptop.
This is a contradiction: when it's censored it cannot report, when it is reporting it is not censored.

Quote Before the 2020 election, the FBI and Twitter said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.  Twitter did what the FBI said and censored the New York Post. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube banned Alex Jones within less than a week of each other.

I think you don't know what censorship is about. Twitter, facebook, youtube or whatever platform cannot censor the New York Post, and that is not what happened. Once the disinformation seemed to be attested they removed the information from their platforms. That is not censorship, because the New York Post still had the information published - those platforms just didn't want to propagate lies. Alex Jones too can publish his lies and conspiracy theories on his own website, in all freedom. So, his disinformation is not censored, some just don't want to be a vehicle for it by republishing it.  Choosing not to relay specific information is not the same as censorship. You could even call it editorial freedom!

So, actually all of your Gish gallop items are null and void, again.
I said earlier that I wouldn't play this game, and I will not continue with it, but this was just to show - once again - that your head is stuck in a world view based on lies and disinformation. Now I have understood that this is your deliberate choice. I won't ask you questions anymore, because we only get lies and disinformation in return. I wish you good luck with your "alternative facts" and happy galloping.

Regarding my definition of freedom, if what I said above is not enough for you, then that's a pity. I think it is more clear than your simple reference to the US constitution (in which there is no definition of freedom given).



The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Back to Top
omphaloskepsis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 5920 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote omphaloskepsis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 18 2024 at 08:23
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

Ermm
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

After Elon Musk bought Twitter, he released communication between the FBI and previous Twitter management.  The FBI told Twitter to censor and ban everybody from Alex Jones to censoring New York Post.
Debunked.

Quote The New York Post was censored because they reported about the Hunter Biden laptop.
This is a contradiction: when it's censored it cannot report, when it is reporting it is not censored.

Quote Before the 2020 election, the FBI and Twitter said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.  Twitter did what the FBI said and censored the New York Post. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube banned Alex Jones within less than a week of each other.

I think you don't know what censorship is about. Twitter, facebook, youtube or whatever platform cannot censor the New York Post, and that is not what happened. Once the disinformation seemed to be attested they removed the information from their platforms. That is not censorship, because the New York Post still had the information published - those platforms just didn't want to propagate lies. Alex Jones too can publish his lies and conspiracy theories on his own website, in all freedom. So, his disinformation is not censored, some just don't want to be a vehicle for it by republishing it.  Choosing not to relay specific information is not the same as censorship. You could even call it editorial freedom!

So, actually all of your Gish gallop items are null and void, again.
I said earlier that I wouldn't play this game, and I will not continue with it, but this was just to show - once again - that your head is stuck in a world view based on lies and disinformation. Now I have understood that this is your deliberate choice. I won't ask you questions anymore, because we only get lies and disinformation in return. I wish you good luck with your "alternative facts" and happy galloping.

Regarding my definition of freedom, if what I said above is not enough for you, then that's a pity. I think it is more clear than your simple reference to the US constitution (in which there is no definition of freedom given).



The Hunter Biden Laptop has been proven to exist and much of the data has been released.  The New York Post told the truth about Hunter Biden's laptop. Contrary to your claim that the New York Post was not censored, the NYP posts were taken down from Twitter after the FBI told Twitter to take the NYP post's down.   The DOJ admitted that the Hunter Biden Laptop was real.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/it-only-took-4-years-doj-finally-acknowledges-hunter-laptop-is-legitimate-for-first-time/ar-AA1ncGMI

The entire Constitution and amendments explain individual and group freedoms.  

The First Amendment (freedom of speech) protects hate speech and misinformation. That's the point.  Free speech protects the rights of people that the government hates to say things that the government hates and finds reprehensible. Here are two examples of Court rulings on the First Amendment. One misinformation and one hate speech ruling.

U.S. v. Alvarez (2012)
Author: Anthony Kennedy

There is no general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression that the First Amendment seeks to guarantee.


National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)

When the National Socialist Party of America, better known as Nazis, was declined a permit to speak in Chicago, the organizers sought a permit from the suburban city of Skokie, where one-sixth of the town's population was made up of families that had survived the Holocaust. County authorities attempted to block the Nazi march in court, citing a city ban on wearing Nazi uniforms and displaying swastikas. 

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower ruling that the Skokie ban was unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the justices declined to hear the case, in essence allowing the lower court's ruling to become law. After the verdict, the city of Chicago granted the Nazis three permits to march; the Nazis, in turn, decided to cancel their plans to march in Skokie.



The Twitter files proved the FBI told Twitter to ban and censor organizations/people.  Twitter became a proxy for the American government's censorship of free speech. Senator Chuck Schumer said, 


“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."



Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 18 2024 at 08:49
Back to Top
suitkees View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2020
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 8731 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote suitkees Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 18 2024 at 08:46
^ What I said: it is your choice to believe in "alternative facts", even when they're debunked.
(I didn't go beyond the first paragraph of your post; I won't spend time on your nonsense anymore)

The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Back to Top
Mirakaze View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog & JR/F/Canterbury Teams

Joined: December 17 2019
Location: (redacted)
Status: Offline
Points: 3568 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Mirakaze Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 18 2024 at 15:32
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

After reading your post, I have to ask you.  Do you think that a nine-year-old girl should be able to have sex with a 40-year-old pedophile...just because the child says they want to have sex with the pedophile?  Do you think eight-year-olds should be able to drink as much alcohol as they want?
Apples and oranges. Those situations could not conceivably lead to anything other than grave harm and are rightfully banned for that reason. You also won't see me make a defence for allowing minors to undergo sexual reassignment surgery; that's not legal anywhere except in extraordinary cases and as far as I know is just a caricature of trans-accommodating policies (in fact you're more likely to see trans activists oppose such surgery being inflicted upon minors in cases that the political right apparently doesn't see as controversial. Look up intersex genital mutilation for an example).
Puberty blockers/hormone therapy is more complicated: it may leave changes that are irreversible, but if a child really is trans and is committed to this identity for the rest of their life then puberty may also leave marks on them that are irreversible. Like any medical treatment performed on young people it must be the result of a delicate process, in this case accompanied by trained psychologists to determine if this is really the best decision for the person in question. Please note however that parents consenting to such medical procedures is NOT A FACTOR in custody disputes according to the California law described in the article you posted. The only thing that matters in such a situation is whether or not the parents accept their child's gender identity. Wouldn't you agree that that is the bare minimum someone might expect a parent to do in this scenario?

Quote I've lived in Texas for my entire life. I have never been harassed in a public bathroom.  Do you have a phobia of public bathrooms?  Why did you think you would be harassed?  I've never had charges pressed against me for using the bathroom. Wink
I am a transgender woman. My boyfriend's parents do not know that I exist, and if they did they would disown him. Before I went over there I made sure to register my visit with the Dutch embassy because I've seen how politicians in that part of the world talk about people like me in public and in the bills they write, portraying people like me as mentally disturbed sex offenders who must be exluded from public life, and the experience of my friend who still is not entirely free to this day cured me of any illusion that the legal system would be on my side if anything bad were to happen to me. Nothing did, because we were in a big city and didn't venture much outside his apartment, but I will never feel entirely safe when I'm there.

I sincerely apologize to you and the person who thanked you for your post if I've legitimately made such a bad impression on you that you readily accuse me of being a liar and an apologist for pedophilia.


Edited by Mirakaze - April 18 2024 at 15:34
Freelance composer, accepting commissions | New album!
Back to Top
omphaloskepsis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 5920 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote omphaloskepsis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 18 2024 at 15:44
Originally posted by Mirakaze Mirakaze wrote:

Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

After reading your post, I have to ask you.  Do you think that a nine-year-old girl should be able to have sex with a 40-year-old pedophile...just because the child says they want to have sex with the pedophile?  Do you think eight-year-olds should be able to drink as much alcohol as they want?
Apples and oranges. Those situations could not conceivably lead to anything other than grave harm and are rightfully banned for that reason. You also won't see me make a defence for allowing minors to undergo sexual reassignment surgery; that's not legal anywhere except in extraordinary cases and as far as I know is just a caricature of trans-accommodating policies (in fact you're more likely to see trans activists oppose such surgery being inflicted upon minors in cases that the political right apparently doesn't see as controversial. Look up intersex genital mutilation for an example).
Puberty blockers/hormone therapy is more complicated: it may leave changes that are irreversible, but if a child really is trans and is committed to this identity for the rest of their life then puberty may also leave marks on them that are irreversible. Like any medical treatment performed on young people it must be the result of a delicate process, in this case accompanied by trained psychologists to determine if this is really the best decision for the person in question. Please note however that parents consenting to such medical procedures is NOT A FACTOR in custody disputes according to the California law described in the article you posted. The only thing that matters in such a situation is whether or not the parents accept their child's gender identity. Wouldn't you agree that that is the bare minimum someone might expect a parent to do in this scenario?

Quote I've lived in Texas for my entire life. I have never been harassed in a public bathroom.  Do you have a phobia of public bathrooms?  Why did you think you would be harassed?  I've never had charges pressed against me for using the bathroom. Wink
I am a transgender woman. My boyfriend's parents do not know that I exist, and if they did they would disown him. Before I went over there I made sure to register my visit with the Dutch embassy because I've seen how politicians in that part of the world talk about people like me in public and in the bills they write, portraying people like me as mentally disturbed sex offenders who must be exluded from public life, and the experience of my friend who still is not entirely free to this day cured me of any illusion that the legal system would be on my side if anything bad were to happen to me. Nothing did, because we were in a big city and didn't venture much outside his apartment, but I will never feel entirely safe when I'm there.

I sincerely apologize to you and the person who thanked you for your post if I've legitimately made such a bad impression on you that you readily accuse me of being a liar and an apologist for pedophilia.

I did not accuse you of being a liar.  I said, "If your Texas friend's story is true...then it would be in the media."   I looked all over the media for your story...I could not find it.  Please provide a link to the story. 

I did not accuse you of being an apologist for pedophilia.   I illustrated, that parents should have the ability to say, "NO" when it comes to underage sex operations...   I pointed out the absurdity by asking you   the questions, 

1. Do you think that a nine-year-old girl should be able to have sex with a 40-year-old pedophile...just because the child says they want to have sex with the pedophile?

2.  Do you think eight-year-olds should be able to drink as much alcohol as they want?Wink  




 


Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 18 2024 at 15:51
Back to Top
Hugh Manatee View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 07 2021
Location: The Barricades
Status: Offline
Points: 1546 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hugh Manatee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 18 2024 at 21:13
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

Originally posted by Hugh Manatee Hugh Manatee wrote:

These right-wing champions fighting for freedom are apparently among those who want to reduce freedom.

This sort of thing confuses me about the concept of freedom in the USA.





Both the Democrat and Republican uni-party wish to reduce freedom in the USA.  The Republicans use a significant portion of their citizen base to cheer for reducing liberal freedoms.  The Democrats use a significant portion of their citizen base to cheer for reducing conservative freedoms.  

Citizens on both sides, who are fooled into cheering for their team are part of the problem. Uninformed citizens give their side permission to shut down freedoms on the other side.  They don't realize that they enable tyranny...which will eventually be turned against them.  

That said, there is a minority of politicians on both sides who are NOT members of the uni-party. It takes effort and research to figure out which politicians are for the American people.  To do so, Democrat and Republican citizens must put aside their biases.  

Regular people from the opposite party are NOT your enemy. Your enemy is the elite rich who drain resources and freedoms from the people. Wink 

I'm an outsider looking in at all this so I might well have missed something. Could you possibly point to examples of "conservative freedoms" that are being reduced.

I know that regular people from anywhere are not my enemy. I don't consider myself to have enemies in that regard at all.

It's not "regular" people to whom I refer. It's extremists. Especially hypocritical extremists, regardless of what their financial status might be.
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas
Back to Top
Hugh Manatee View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 07 2021
Location: The Barricades
Status: Offline
Points: 1546 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hugh Manatee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 18 2024 at 21:18
Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

Originally posted by omphaloskepsis omphaloskepsis wrote:

 
Both the Democrat and Republican uni-party wish to reduce freedom in the USA.  
If they really were a uniparty, why is there still so much freedom that they still need to reduce? Couldn't they have set the level of freedom at what they desire already in the last x hundred years?

Before I answer your questions...What is your definition of freedom?  Could you be specific and/or clarify your second question?  I don't understand the second question.Wink
I'm making reference to your quote, so for the sake of answering my question I'm happy to go with your definition of freedom. My point is, assuming that uni-party stuff is true, the uni-party must have had a lot of power for a very long time. So my question is, if this is so, why didn't they use that power in a way that they wouldn't need to worry about too much freedom now (which they  according to your statement apparently do)?

Can you imagine 1950s America accepting a COVID lockdown and all that went with it?  Folks losing jobs and getting arrested on a beach, defying the lockdown. Can you imagine 1950s America accepting "story time drag hour" or children's sex changes?  America's demographics were different then. Most folks attended church.  Are you familiar with the concept of boiling a frog?  

It goes like this:  If you toss a frog in boiling water, the frog will jump out of the water.  However, if you put a frog in lukewarm water and slowly turn the temperature up one degree at a time...The frog won't notice until it's too late.  I don't know if it's true for a frog, but it's a solid analogy.  The "boiling frog analogy" describes human behavior. Wink 

"The legend is entirely incorrect! The 'critical thermal maxima' of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2°F per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so."
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.152 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.