Jump to content
Baseops Forums

Negatory

Registered User
  • Content Count

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Negatory

  1. I misinterpreted both of your points and I apologize. Agree with your statements.
  2. Relatively easy example with made up numbers. If straight couples are taxed at 20% and gay couples are taxed at 30%, how is that not a surcharge for being gay? It doesn’t matter how you spin it, sexuality should not be a discriminator when it comes to access to benefits. If you want to take away all the expected governmental benefits of marriage, then that’s totally fine.
  3. And just to be crystal clear, yes I am equating advocacy for Christian marriage as all that is allowable in America to advocating for sharia law, at least when it comes to ethical arguments. Also, why do evangelicals never advocate for the abolition of pork products (Leviticus 11:47) or the illegality of wearing two different fabrics to a nightclub (Deuteronomy 22:11)? If we’re gonna try to oppress people based on the Old Testament, at least be genuine about it.
  4. Sure. Another solution would be to get rid of the governmental benefits of marriage for straight people, but I dont see a lot of advocacy for that for some reason. You can’t financially and legally marginalize human beings and say that you aren’t treating them poorly. If the argument was “marriage is a religious ceremony, so we will disband that as a government entity. Everyone is entitled to the governmental benefits of a union so we support the union regardless of your sexuality.” But the right wing would rather further entrench religion into politics. I was fed the same BS and felt similarly to you all on this until my sibling came out as gay. It changes your perspective on what is malicious and what isn’t. I assume you guys aren’t for sharia law (although guardian probably takes offense to me assuming this), but it is a totally reasonable and understood opinion of society for a huge part of the world, so we should respect that amirite?
  5. I mean, Pence has definitely treated gay people poorly, literally trying to take away basic rights. Just cause he didn’t literally punch one of them in the face doesn’t mean he didn’t treat them poorly. 2000: During his congressional campaign, Mike Pence said, “Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage.” 2004: Mike Pence co-sponsored a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Many more...
  6. As someone who is, at least policy wise, leaning towards voting for Biden, I have to agree with Lord Ratner. When it comes down to VP vs VP, Pence is the one who seems like he has a moral compass and tries to stick to it, even if I don’t agree with some of his ideas. Harris comes across as extremely condescending and motivated by stupid shit like wokeness or dog whistle racism bs. I really didn’t like her act in their debate.
  7. I’d be interested to read more about this if you have sources.
  8. Stop just saying socialism with no context when you just don’t like a policy. It’s pointless. You debase literally the meaning of the word. This is what you sound like: Also, alternative reality to your “truth”: he led America through the Great Depression and WWII, ultimately giving America the ability to rise to be a world superpower. Sorry that the effects of his policies don’t fit your narrative. Do you think Ike and Nixon were also socialists since they presided over similar times?
  9. I assume you are referring to the socialist United States of America of 1936-1980. 🇺🇸
  10. I never came close to saying that. My point is literally in line with what you’re saying: you can have meaningful regulation and limit the free market and have it be our version of “capitalism.” But this point does require many people to concede that government intervention and limitations on the free market do not automatically equal socialism, and I feel like that’s the more common trope on this forum.
  11. Antitrust judgments aren’t consensual and are often forced upon people and businesses who have acted within the bounds of the free market. The point is not that everything should be regulated, but some things should.
  12. Pure unbridled economic libertarianism has been demonstrated a failure dozens of times as far back as steel or railroads. If you think the free market always works in America - just because that’s how it “was founded” - I’ve got news for you.
  13. The government probably couldn’t provide healthcare efficiently. I agree that the VA is probably a good indicator of what could happen if we put our faith in the government to save us. But they could regulate and fix stuff like this. We pay more for everything than almost every other nation, even when we’re getting the same stuff. Get rid of the admins, make it criminal to price gouge on materials, encourage the production of generic drugs, and provide incentive to non profit insurance companies. The unbridled free market is failing here and needs some regulation.
  14. I think you, as someone in good faith who is clearly trying to understand what I’m saying, understood that the word “impossible” did not literally mean that it was not possible. It meant that some people argue that it couldn’t possibly work in the US. Or am I missing something here?
  15. Semantics. They have universal healthcare we do not. Oh and that’s with roughly the same quality of life that comes with living in a standard first world country.
  16. Fine, I’ll concede Canada. There are bad examples, see my last post. But out of the 11 countries on there, 10 of them provide government healthcare. The US is the only one that says it’s impossible.
  17. Actually, looks like you may be right on Canada using present day numbers, but you’ll notice that many countries on this list have very comparable numbers: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/health-care-wait-times-by-country
  18. That’s a pretty exaggerated talking point: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/trumps-claim-about-canadians-traveling-to-the-united-states-for-medical-care/%3foutputType=amp
  19. This is an extreme viewpoint. If your argument is that “treasure” should never be taken from someone to benefit someone else, I think you’re gonna have a tough time justifying the US military.
  20. You guys are kinda falling into a trap with this argument, as I would say the vast majority of Americans are very thankful and happy with at least the interstate highway system. Arguing about poorly maintained city or state roads isn’t the point when I am 100% sure I can drive safely from New York to Washington with no fees. And that’s thanks to a federal spending program. And it was an example of something the government opened up for everyone to use equally as long as you have a drivers license. If you try to argue this point, I think you’re gonna lose people. Now if you are arguing that healthcare is different in that some people are unnecessary drains, that’s reasonable. Maybe healthcare cost should correspond to factors in your control (smoking, weight gain/loss with no underlying condition, drug usage)? It shouldn’t be an argument for no healthcare at all, though, in my opinion. The point is that it is absolutely possible to provide a service for the benefit of all effectively. Many other countries have actually demonstrated it, so this argument kind of falls flat in the new more global world where we can compare ourselves to everyone else.
  21. Yeah, Jesus christ. Not only Republicans love America.
  22. Haha, responses were perfect. Ad hominem my homies. Easy way out, but it's 100% what's happening. Nothing in the way of addressing the point of the text, just baselessly attacking the person/source. Which is pretty normal when you don't know what to say in response to the actual point. If all you can come up with is that I am "projecting" or I found my information somewhere else - or that it's no different for how republicans feel about the left (even though the point of the post is that it IS different) - then I'll assume you don't actually have a counterpoint. The sources show that groupthink happens significantly more on the right. And, based on your responses, you can't address it. Honestly, I'll bet you never get around to responding to the point of the post. You may literally even plan not to already. And saying stuff like "Biden doesn't know Biden's policies" is about as useful as saying "Trump doesn't know Trump's policies." It's meaningless.
  23. **Trigger warning** You know, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when I'm trying to have legitimate philosophical discussions with republican leaning dudes on this forum and in the real world. I will point something out, and you will just say "no." What do you believe in? What policies do you support? Why is there no consensus? Is there a moral compass that guides republican policies or opinions? Why can't you give me a solid answer to any of these questions? Why must you consult with your news sources to determine what your opinion should be? You see it with everything from Coronavirus to Police Reform to Global Warming to Iran/Syria/China to healthcare to religion to fiscal policy. It's simple: you don't think for yourselves. The only thing that you guys agree with is that the "republican policies are better than the alternatives." You guys are voting for Trump just to not vote for Biden. Not that you actually know any of Biden's policies. The problem, here, is that you guys are not arguing in good faith. It means you're not arguing to come to a mutual understanding. In a true debate, both sides must be willing to acknowledge if the other side has good points and be open to changing their minds. Arguing here is the equivalent to arguing with sheep, even if you guys are some well-educated, well-employed sheep. Whatever the party, whatever fox news, whatever the memes say - that is what you will believe and vehemently defend. Think for yourselves is easy for me to say, but I know it's not going to happen, based on the actual data: Exhibit 1: Opinion of Syrian airstrikes under Obama vs. Trump. Source Data 1, Source Data 2 and Article for Context Exhibit 2: Opinion of the NFL after large amounts of players began kneeling during the anthem to protest racism. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Morning Consult package) Exhibit 3: Opinion of ESPN after they fired a conservative broadcast analyst. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing YouGov’s “BrandIndex” package) Exhibit 4: Opinion of Vladimir Putin after Trump began praising Russia during the election. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 5: Opinion of "Obamacare" vs. "Kynect" (Kentucky's implementation of Obamacare). Kentuckians feel differently about the policy depending on the name. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 6: Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 7: White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. (Same source and article as previous exhibit.) Exhibit 8: Republicans were far more likely to embrace a certain policy if they knew Trump was for it—whether the policy was liberal or conservative. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 9: Republicans became far more opposed to gun control when Obama took office. Democrats have remained consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 10: Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 11: Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 approval points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph also shows some Democratic bias, but not nearly as bad. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 12: Republicans became deeply negative about trade agreements when Trump became the GOP frontrunner. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 13: 10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 14: Republicans suddenly feel very comfortable making major purchases now that Trump is president. Democrats don't feel more or less comfortable than before. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Gallup's Advanced Analytics package) Exhibit 15: Democrats have had a consistently improving outlook on the economy, including after Trump's victory. Republicans? A 30-point spike once Trump won. Source Data and Article for Context
  24. Stay on topic, brother. You said something that has been shown to be false, and was even shown false in the article you sent, and that is what was pointed out: From you (this is the false part): "The racist narrative falls apart especially when you look at the race of the police conducting these interactions. Minority police have a higher representation in use of violence against minorities than white police." From your article: "Black officers were not more likely to fatally shoot Black civilians (OR = 1.06 vs. 1.23), and Hispanic officers were less likely to fatally shoot Black (OR = 1.23 vs. 1.29) and Hispanic (OR = 1.32 vs. 1.84) civilians" From nature: see previous graph. Also, if you want to get into a scientific discussion, then I assume you are smart enough to know that how you look at data affects the conclusions you can gather. If you intentionally ignore certain permutations of the data set, then you can often show things that aren't true. Here's the best part, the authors literally RETRACTED their article because it was being misused. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/18130 "The authors wish to note the following: “Our article estimated the role of officer characteristics in predicting the race of civilians fatally shot by police. A critique pointed out we had erroneously made statements about racial differences in the probability of being shot (1), and we issued a correction to rectify the statement (2). Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research." They had to literally issue a retraction because people like you mis-cite it to make false points.
  25. Another demonstrably false claim spouted as fact, which entirely derails your argument. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z
×
×
  • Create New...