Jump to content

Scott Mayers

Member
  • Posts

    1,221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Scott Mayers

  1. That generic, "Not sure how your analogies relate" only tells me that you are evading the questions wholesale without a willingness to debate it. If I have specific arguments that definitively prove anything the anti-democratic anti-rationalists , Trump-worshipping bigots and racists simply dismiss makeing sense of the logic as though it is a foreign language. Trump literally believes IN lying as it correlates with his exterme belieif in absolute 'right' to EXPLOIT any means to gain a profit regardless of any actual moral conduct. I don't know anyone even on the "left" who asserts Biden, as the present contrasting representative in power now is remotely as though he is some God that Trump is given by the cult of irrational fandom granted to him.
  2. So Trump had absolutely no role? I just explained how this post-hoc reasoning justifies a criminal to steal money then give it to the charity of their desire to assure the benefits of the crime are preserved in favor of the criminal regardless. So can you please answer in light of the argument rather than just repeating what I already acknowledge as 'fact'? Edit addition: It can be a 'fact' that the money given to a charity by a criminal be 'certified' real; The question is whether this coincidental 'confirmation' of money received by the charities suffice in permitting them to keep it. (?)
  3. If a criminal robs a bank and then gives it away to a non-profit organization, like a modern-day RobinHood, although the transfer of moneys may be legitimately 'confirmed' as real, do these non-profits have a right to keep the money? Doesn't the acts of someone convicted of theft require giving up the right to keep properties they own that at least cover what they stole even if they gained those pariticular thiings themselves legitimately. It may be technically impossible to do anything practically with present barriers, but the philosophical question here first is whether the logic is valid about whether a convicted President's acts during the phase of his crimes justify removing the benefitical procedes gained by him, such as the act of appointing the very judges who have the power to overturn any conviction? If there is no accountability to actions of those in high places regardless, isn't it suggesting that others in this world should simiply give up any compassion for collections of people, especially 'democratic' ideals, or lose for NOT being equally corrumpt and deceptive? The nature of distrust depending upon the culprits of the problems are creating the very assurance of success BY these culprits regardless of what happens after their acts. Convicted or not, Trump's acts 'trump' any questions of his credibility. I believe that if we don't address these or just let these pass, the only choice for us all is to align ourselves ONLY with those favoring our particular welfare. And these will be based upon the lowest 'common denominators', one's own race or sex. Instead of fighting against "poverty", for example, we are forced to fight for "poverty of MY people ONLY". Such discrete classifications isolate them making it impossible for the actual underlying issue to be treated.
  4. The Constitutional 'right' in U.S. politics is to have a system that does NOT accept those elected to represent one's PARTICULAR religious belief to impose upon all others. The beliefs against abortion, a choice of conscience based ONLY on a religious belief that anything biologically conceived at conception is God's will, is not 'constitutional' because it violates the right of those OTHER people's beliefs about what constitutes a 'person'. You Rightwing nuts don't question how Corporations are arbitrary CREATIONS of 'persons' ["incorporate" means to make a company into a 'person' in law]. Should we then not question whether 'person' itself of non-living beings could have a 'right' to have LIMIITED LIABILITY [They get to profit upon investment but are only liable to lose what they put in but not any DEBT they create, enabling them to ABORT their entity's existence with the debt being imposed upon the whole. You can't be hypocritical if you are arguing for some right of your discrete beliefs that dominate your reasons for being against abortion. If you think that some magical essence 'suffers' where it lacks life experience and proof of its conscious existence and worth of a 'being', you cannot bias laws that favor YOUR beliefs upon OTHERS that the rest of us are simultaneously NOT permitted to impose upon you for other's DIFFERENT beliefs, religious or not.
  5. UNLIKE you, I am not influenced by what I merely 'hear'. I don't fall the absurd caricatured news outlets that act as rag magazine entertainment. As one WITH a high technical 'I.Q.', I think for myself and default NOT to trusting ANY UNIQUE sources of news. FACT: ALL television 'news' is biased and FAVORS the Republican ideals with respect to PROFIT by default. I interpret CNN as an alternate class of 'conservatives' who just happen to represent mostly catholic liberalism or 'moderate' forms of religions. Their relative 'liberalism' contrasts with the intollerant exploiters on th e Right who just happen to be most extreme given they chose beliefs based upon direct inheritance and not democratic choice. Your idea of 'news' is DISCRETELY authoritative by those you like emotionally. Don't impose upon me your own DISCRETE prefernce. I don't hve BLIND FAITH in any diescrete autority so don't think like your one track minded mentatlity. You are like the religious who think that the 'athiest' is just a form of your own religion that just favors your god's opponent demigod or devil. The fact that we don't believe in ANY 'gods' means we also don't believe in your DISCRETE Satanic demigod.
  6. See above resonse regarding another asserting the same. But to add a point, should the options of selection be itself decided independent of the population to have power to veto? The confirmation was to the technical majjority of a branch of government that defaults to favor powerful people exclusively of the population at large. I cannot vote here in Canada for a similar type of reason: the SELECTION of which TYPE of parties get to even be permitted to exist is limited to how the PRIOR parties in power get to collectively eliminate competition. By presenting no real alternatives AFTER the nomination, only those of the Senate made up of PRIOR party affiliations and the coincidence of a technical majority get to 'confirm'; the rest are ignored. The problem here is that there is overt corruption that empowers MORE of those who act even more corrupt when they are literally obvious about their deception. AS to asserting "congress" as confirming, for instance, deceptively hides the fact that the DEMOCRATIC part, the 'lower' house representing the people, is completely overruled regardless. The Senate, being an 'upper' house, represents only the wealthy minority, as does the Supreme Courts. We are basically held hostage by wealthy people regardless, countering the ideals of what 'democracy' means.
  7. He is being propped up by other Republicans because he is overty 'accountable' as an independent individual but 'unaccountable' to the rest. The other members, even if they don't like him, can EXCUSE their own flaws as due to him alone for proving he IS a lone wolf actor in his decision making. The choice to keep him their is because he points to himself as the party's decision maker and relieves the burden of the latent extremism within the ideology of the Right so that they can operate under the radar. I blame the supporters who turn their heads away and who borrows the same kind of corrupt belief in DECEPTION regardless. The point here is to ask whether there even IS any realistic means to EVER hold Presidents accountable. The reason Putin opted for overt violent war against Ukraine was because he too realized how effective the power of absolution CAN be maintained for ANY act of a 'republican' style leader as himeself. If Trump can get away with murder and his own countrymen cannot do fuck all to hold him or his party accountable, it proves that he too should be as bold knowing that the rest of the world cannot do fuck all to remove him from power also.
  8. The original thought regarding 'republics' from Plato's ideal of having duty bound non-partisan intelligence which was assumed to be universally conforming has been corrupted by partisan politics that redefine the 'intellect' as whomever those in power alone get to decide should speak through them. That is, the concept of a "supreme court" places not those who are necessarily believers in raw intelligence but in emotionally-bound favoritism to select subsets of people with LOYALTY placed on top. So... Should we not question whether assignments to such powerful positions be placed by a single person such as the President. The postion of President no longer fits with the original concept of 'republic' either, ....as well as to the concept of "Senate". The U.S. uses the Senate as the body representing OWNERS rather than the original regional interests apart from particular people's interests, such as the envrionement. Thus, they do not represent the 'intellect' either but a type of overruler of democracy FOR the wealthy, given they command those regions in which their ownership interests are met. Should we not redress the original concepts philosophically to determine WHY what originally begins with one ideal gets perverted to serve the very opposite view of these founding concepts?
  9. Are you asserting that he isn't guilty of anything or just speaking about how the technical difficulty of doing so will be overruled by whomever controls the Senate majority regardless?
  10. Trump is treasonist for intentionally attempting to turn over the election in an obvious coup. The fact that those like you continue to praise him KNOWING this alone is disgusting.
  11. Given Trump alone selected the justices that turned against the vast majority regardless of the will of the public, ...if he were to be found guilty in a tribunal jury made up of the people (as a vote), should his significant actions that potentially lead to the a conviction of the crime be removed? That is, since Trump intentionally set up the court to intentionally enable his insurrection NOT be convicted, is not his treason enough to relieve those justices? Obviously, I am for this but though this might be a distinct 'philosophical' thread for those questioning this.. What do you think?
  12. I 'liked' but question the apparent link. It doesn't appear to be a legit youTube link but a redirect. Can you post the original link so that me or others can verify securely? (It will open a window here if it is legit).
  13. It DOES mean that you cannot prove (nor disprove) any claims about whether a fetus is 'moral' or 'immoral' to abort. If merely asserting one's opinion matters, then why do we not just leave it up to a Hitler-esk leader to dictate their opinion to us and have us all compelled to nod to him arbitrarily? Why not accept whatever status quo is being asserted anywhere? Your faith in yourself ignrores and disrespects the faith of those opting for abortion as though your own opinion should matter over theirs, let alone my own faith in myself who disagrees with you. I argue with logical appeal; you argue with emotional appeal. Given the 'Left' is already demonstrating doubt by the same standards by the caricatured representative extremes for their EMOTIONS getting in the way, should you not prefer to keep things LOGICAL instead? Government is nothing more than a collective 'moral' legislator that PEOPLE, not gods, create to negotiate and set tentative laws that appeal to the most people. Because everyone has distinct backgrounds religiously, you cannot assume they share the same 'morals'. But even where they exist, religion itself is not proven any less a form of PRIVATE 'government' of one they particularly just gamble is 'good' for creating the label of this being as that which defines 'good' as an arbitrary dictator. [The word 'god' is a biased preference based on the same root as 'good'. It ignores though that evil has to also be a construct owned by this being or it BEGS the question. If God is 'good' just because it declares itself such, it begs why any 'evil' exists at all. "Eve", the root of the term, "evil" [Eve-al(l)] initially meant all that followed God, but Eve was also created by it. So who created 'evil'? If women did (as some propose of Eve as a particular historical figure), didn't God create Eve? Because of the contradictions, religions cannot be trusted as a root of morals but a reflection of what SOME subset of people belief. The creation of the religious Gods themselves are human creations relative to me as an athiest. So why would or should I accept having faith in particular claims that some person decrees is real when I too can just as easily assert that I am your God, and your lack of respect of me is not 'good' because I am the one defining what 'good' (and thus who 'God' is by proxy) means? [Note that God should be an atheist like me if it has no appeal to base its evaluation further than declaring it is so.] ...And I then created this post and at the end of it I saw that it was all 'good'; So it came to be that as the Aten fell to Adam, by Atum the perfect Sol(id) is to be returned to Eden the very next day, (for)Eve(r). And so now I will rest as I grant my Godness to Eve(eryting) fore Eve(ryone) and to carry forth my wishes for Eve(r). And thus, I am the creator of all that is Eve-El(ohim) too! Maybe I'm just too "Nile(istic)" about it all, but Nut(hing) exists above except (H)Eve(n) and (G)Od(den) before it.
  14. No. I only understand that you simply assert belief without considering how those opting for abortion also have their own subjective beliefs to be respected with at least the same respect you expect of me to you for yours. Why does YOUR beliefs matter more significantly than others? Why, especially given you are a mere anonymous avatar here, do you presume I should trust your 'wisdom' over my own regardless? I didn't see you respect logically valid argumentation and so do you think I should trade that for authority of an adversarial view who predefines me as an enemy for lacking faith in your concepts of what is or is not 'moral/immoral'?
  15. What about preconceived babies. Do they also count? Hmmm. What about jerking off. Do you save your semen because it represents an 'unborn child' potentially? When discussing 'morals', these need to be defined and then proven how they are somehow 'universal' regardless of one's particular background. Such subjective appeals are strictly religious. We DEFINE morals tentatively through that very system you go against: government!
  16. So you've been reduced to arguing that I'm just plain 'wrong' just 'because you stated it? More Chewbacca [see my last comment to your commrade above.]
  17. Oh, I'm sorry Ben. I didn't realize this was you! I think your bias is showing. Fame for being a pretentious success at his profession is like a Motivational Speaker suckering his audience on his own virtue as an intellectual adviser of 'success' based on how he became successful by becoming a Motivational Speaker. Such circular reasoning gets past you morons but ...whatever floats your boat, I guess. But don't expect me to count his argument as profound and rationally appealing simply because you can't notice the distinction of valid arguments. The argument BEGS signficance. The question posed to him was how he could seems to uniquely determine THAT an unborn fetus has 'morals'.? His response was to alter the defense by defaulting to assume that ALL life regardless of age is 'moral', get applause for the added insult against the 'evil atheist' and the reaction of the background unfriendly audience to non-concervative non-religious rationale. It reminds me of the 'Chewbacca' defense South Park mocked about using irrelevant appeals that sound as though they are more significant for emphasizing its irrationality. Those who validate the effectiveness appeal to the emotional way the defense is argued and NOT its content that is unrelated to the question at hand.
  18. Why expect me to trust a known conservative nutcases who defends RELIGIOUS beliefs about 'value'? This closet case also lacks a valid argument given I already pointed out that the conservative view DOES discriminately 'stab people' most particularly when they are awake, especially when they back up their fearless compassionate need for guns, death sentences, and the war machine used only to profit selfishly at the expense of the unknown people they are harming half-way across the world. This has no validity whatsoever whoever thought this was a mic drop is appealing to the rhetorical con of asserting what is 'true' only needs repreating it or putting it in bold terms so that the dumb audience hopefully trusts that this comment was likey mentioned by some third-party unbiased and univested neutral viewpoint it is not. He is not a credible arguer outside of one's anti-intellectual FAITH in conservative politics.
  19. So do you believe that people 'earn' their predisposition to exist regardless of the validity of life they actually live? What happened to compassion for suffering IN LIFE for those who did not CHOOSE to exist by irresponsible parents whom you expect should nevertheless BECOME the loving parents they aren't for their own willingness to choose abortion as an option in the first place? Do you think these immature 'parents' you'd be willing to toss in jail anyways still qualify to raise their unwanted children? You should at least want to know IF the potential parent is opting for abortion so that you can KNOW these are unfit parentally qualified. Then, given these are 'vile' criminals, you'd have to follow up and be sure that loving parents do exist elsewhere to adopt which enters the power of government to be permitted to also judge bad parents versus good ones, something you might also not want government to be involved with.(?) Look, to prove your sincerity, demonstrate your compassion and faith for ALL who suffer and die for ALL clear non-controversial topics that you simultaneously support. I believe that if you count the deaths up, you'd learn that the Right-wing ideals tend to foster more death and suffering of others far more than those who gamble on the sincerity of a women asserting their need to abort. If 99.99 % of gun owners are innocent users, than you should be able to trust that the majority of abortions are done with the same default of faith you grant these folks.
  20. There is more. From science: Anesthetics work by blocking memory access that prevents you from associating your stored experiences. This is also why we do not remember great details and I do not know ONE who could claim to remember 'feeling' much when they were still unborn fetuses, although traces of this may exist trivially. So before we are two, our systems are LEARNING to both 'evalutate' something environmentally as being pain/pleasure as well as those thought processes that derive interpretation of what is or is not good/bad. While two year olds certainly 'feel' sensations, before that, a gradual process of LEARNING what to assign to feelings has to be developed BY the environement. A baby has to LEARN to sense what is pain and it requires windows of develoment that arbitrarily assign what is in the present post birth environement. A baby doesn't initally cry, for instance, because it is sad or in pain or some other discomfort but is a genetic set of reactions that WE as parents put 'value' into. For instance, the first cry may be the reaction needed to clear the amniotic fluid out of the lungs. The baby only learns the association of crying as 'discomfort' when its environment teaches them how to assign the event as something by reactive parent's. They also need time for their brain to assign which spaces the baby should hold the memories that are also needed as mentioned above is needed for sensation. Many animals, like cats, do not have memory placed aside for sight and so can become blind AFTER they are born if the window of development lacks information during that period. The same goes for baby development long AFTER they are born and why we do not remember details of those periods. Babies do not have 'preferences'. Think for instance about how odd that many presume about their premature child's power to know whether they prefer homosexual behaviours or not. I'm on the side that says they LACK such assignments early on and so would, if any feelings existed at all, lack a desire for sexual favor nor disfavor. You likely do not remember how you learned to walk. This is because the brain of a child is undefined by having strong variable connections that lack strict pathways. So the baby needs time to PRUNE the hardwired excess of neural connections to DEFINE the shortcuts that our emotional sense of comforts and values. So such children may lack complete assignments of sensation not being able to differentiate between what would eventually be defining of one's sense of pain or pleasure. Babies have genetic defaults that permit them to go into a protection mode when harmed by overwhelming signals. Even a two year old may survive certain events that would doom more mature ones. This explains why for instance children can survive a drowning by being revived: their system is predefined like many other animals in the wild to NOT interpret the shock of traumatic sensations to the same degree we have when older. They are also more 'plastic' and this flexibility is also due to the excessive connections. These rational non-religious arguments demonstate at least a potential justification based upon evolutionary logic that far superceeds any opinion based upon some mystical religioius interpretation. While it is not to be favored is an excuse to not use other birth control preventions at all, and may permit the pychological supports one may include in one's familiar religions, But the overconcern about a fetus by you guys is fucking SUSPECT when you believe in other odd beliefs that suggest you are only preferring OTHER children not to be aborted for some ulterior interests and NOT the child's welfare. The 'liberals' have far more compassion universally IN ACTION than the subjective IN-GROUP mindset of the conservatives who believe in intrinsic rights to 'family' autonomy exclusive of other's right to overrule. Your side supports exploiting any advantages that empowers you economically also. Thus, you prove suspect when pretending an odd sudden compassion for the unborn of OTHERS outside your own family.(?) An unborn child is certainly less significant than one who is born and an older person who has been here longer also has more 'value' for demonstrating maturity. So why would you guys favor destroying the lives of adults unless you have some sick fetish about dumb pre-intellectualized beings that babies represent in the same way one favors irrationally a puppy versus a full grown dog who has 'earned' the experience that gives them their personality. If you have preference for immaturity over a being that is not even fully developed until it is already born and still requires years just to begin to speak, what higher virtue can we expect of your opinion about mature things?
  21. Stop being hypocritical. If you abore 'death' so much, take your issue up with your God. Wasn't death itself the sad inherent 'secret of the gods' that the Tree of Wisdom 'cursed' Earthlings to accept? If you are not faking your religion, do the 'dead' fetus' not also get salvation regardless? Is your God NOT the one in command and control of the FATE of those who live and die? WHY are you in favor of a need for weapons and a desperate need to KEEP political power AS THOUGH you are athiests like me but who prefer to pretend that you are devout Christians instead? You are cowards who lack respect for the LIVING when you IMPOSE slavery predefined upon those OTHER children you want to 'save' to serve YOU later. You hate the free thinking liberties of others but demand that we should respect you as though you are 'superior' simply for declaring that God works for your wishes....your commands, .....your 'prayers'...that beg IT sucks your dick when you call. And to add, ....I was adopted! While I enjoyed my life up to today, I would still not condemn my parent(s) had they opted to abort. So shut your mouth about whom you are having 'compassion' for. If you want to stop the need for abortion, become a scientist to seek technilogical means to try to prevent accidental births. You might even profit by it if you can find a means that serves to remove the religious pretentiousness you use to argue against killing that you hypocritically support in most other political issues elsewhere. Hunting, war, anti-science, pro-relgious beliefs about things like DEATH sentences for criminal convicts you (or the conservative religious mindset in general) that you hold are far more PRO-death than the prevention of birth of a fetus that cannot live independently of necessary supports. And if you are against technology interfering with 'nature', understand that less than half of all births prior to the last hundred and fifty years did not survive and women with more than a few births often died as well. Guns are also 'unnatural' as already mentioned. So prove you have the supposed uprightous virtue of 'God's favor' by going back to the woods (without the artificial tools that demonstrate you as weak) and show us that you can compete with the bears in the woods without the progress you take for granted.
  22. So they are better off dead is what you are saying. Kinda like Anna Navarro wishing family members with Down Syndrome and Autism were never born... too much work she claims. Such statements should be considered hate speech They were never 'alive' neurologically in the first place. It is only your religious dictatorial declarations of pretentious compassion for some magical 'soul' you think God IMPOSED upon these accidents of nature that grant you your delusion. You have to also explain WHY the fuck it is of YOUR personal interest to care about the FREE CHOICES of others that do NOT infringe on YOUR OWN! You seem to think that your OWN children are YOUR personal a private privilige to rule independent of government but are willing to USE government hypocritically to IMPOSE generic laws that demand that OTHER people's children need to be controlled. You think you are a 'superior' being that knows 'better' than even your own God or that you believe that your God has granted you SPECIAL status of uprighteousness to have exception to rule over others' existence WITHOUT THE LIABILITY that those unwanted children are imposed to be raised in. You think you NEED guns yet hypocritically assert some pretence of 'faith' in a powerful almighty God? Why would the faithful be so unfaithful of the 'free choice' power that their supposed god gives to ALL people? Why do you pretend some faith in something you actually spit at....insulting its own superiority at granting 'free choice'. It is certainly NOT 'free choice' for those pre-slaves you want to see raised on someone else's dime: AND, yet you further hypocritically hate things like government daycare centers. It all adds up to one big fucking selfish con by pretentious spoiled brats who think that the world should serve them simply for their own accidental fortune. You use your religion FOR control of others while justifying your own default behavior as inherently 'virtuous'. Get off your high horses or stop being hypocritical. If you claim to have God on your side, then prove it by ACTIONS that demonstrate that you TRUST in God's supposed 'gift' of free will; You shouldn't NEED guns if you actually believed either! And that love of hunting you need for 'sport' only demonstrative of virtue to the act of KILLLING as somehow still NECESSARY rather than some mere hobby. You guys have the blood on your hands for more destruction and death than any one of those aborting their fetuses have. So PROVE that you have a FAITH in God that you are excusing as uniquely being concerned about unborn fetuses. You fuckwads have a sick fetish about OTHER people's children's preservation uniquely of more concern than whether they might suffer or be torchered AFTER they are born. ??? If you have a non-religious and non-hypocritical justification for your misplaced interests in others' children's existence but not their continous state of impoverishment,, can you express this? Do you think it is MORE virtuous to live a torchered life just because one is alive than to have them snuffed out prior to their capacity to even think, feel, or reflect on what is or is not pain, pleasure, 'good', nor 'bad'?
  23. What? You would create criminals with brand new gun laws as well. 99.9% of gun owners are responsible gun owners... would be like banning all cars because a few act irresponsible. As for abortion, what you folks don't acknowledge is you are taking human life through your action. Of course you twist yourself into a pretzel by claiming its a clump of cells just to refuse to address that point And you missed the whole point!? The fact THAT you think that 99.9% of gun owners are 'responsible' gun owners should then be extended to the abortion PROVIDERS AND those who opt for abortion that you favor making illegal. The health care providers who do the abortions are also ignored for their input on this as though you oppositely think that educated professional physicians are somehow less qualified than the Hick who thinks they are more morally upright and less likely to be stupid neglectful or abusive gun owners. Hypocritically, you also don't mind killing chiildren who transition to adulthood by being sent off to your love of war as a means to 'cull' overpopulation. That is, you could care less about terminating the life of a being that has certainly outgrown their puppyhood cuteness and coincidental 'innocence'. The ONLY real reason that conservative's do not want abortion is because they favor a DEMAND of desperate poor people they hate who can be forced by their OVER-SUPPLY to become literal servile slaves, fodder to make the self-interested capitalist to PROFIT more! Furthermore, you need religion to foster false hope to keep these slaves respectful of your arrogant 'superiority' for being the authorities of these superstitious artificial constructs.
  24. No. You're a prototypical Libbie who ignores the mutilation of viable babies. Now that we've got that straightened out... Many adoptees are abused or neglected by those fewer parents who choose to adopt but then realized too late that they are NOT pets; Once the initial thrill (?) of having the children they couldn't have of their own are realized to live beyond 126 dog years (18 human years) and they seem to be less 'appreciative' of them as masters than a real dog, they prefer NOT to have adopted in the first place, divorce and remarry new spouses who also don't like children and become Evangelical or Fundamental Christians to help them justify their criminal negligence given they can be 'saved' by mere incantations of 'belief THAT Jesus exists' before they die. Putting the onus on unknown hopefully 'good' parents to take on the burden of these unwanted children doesn't guarantee anything and more than likely not attracts those potential 'parents' who think that they needed children to 'save' their marriage, NOT an appropriate reason to adopt. They are not pets and do not require being 'saved' by adult chiidren who can't feel 'whole' without playing pretend grown ups.
×
×
  • Create New...