Biden Losing It

[The Grand Nudger]

Thread has been on topic the whole time. It's a space for reich wing nuts to say their talking points.

[Angrboda]

Uh, no, it's not.   One act tells you close to zero information, even about the act.    And your suspicion doesn't grant you any rights regarding the offenders.  Your suspicions get you dick.  You're just exercising your prejudice toward the harm of individuals who may not merit your harm and that is immoral.  And you still are just posting red herrings because it isn't whether your bigotry is acceptable or not, but whether your interpretation of the social contract as an all-or-nothing principle is sensible.

There's a reason people are superstitious and prejudicial.  It's because it benefits genetic fitness.

How many times has "Trust me, I've changed" been followed by a 5th rape, or a 2nd murder victim, or a wife going back to a husband and shortly thereafter receiving her 100th beating?  Hint: it's common as fuck.

As for bigotry-- what bigotry would that be?  Bigotry against convicted felons?  What are you even talking about?

Right. And we should lock up black people at birth because they're more likely to break the law. You can't take away someone's rights because of what you think they might do. That's applying a generality to something specific, and in the case of individual people, it's textbook bigotry. Maybe you need a dictionary. And you're still posting red herrings instead of justifying your central argument. When are you go to do that?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not at birth, more like early to late teens, prison pipeline. You pop one asshole in the mouth and you end up in prison for most of your adult life..but, as Benny notes, you can beat your wife about a thousand times with warnings and apologies. I wonder what might account for the disparity in enforcement, incarceration, and readmission to society?

At the very bottom of it, is the false notion that we're going too easy on offenders or potential offenders..part nd parcel of "the collapse of western society"....but judging by our prison population and the states of affairs for formerly incarcerated people....we are absolutely not. So..maybe, hypothetically, there's a place somewhere that could use a more heavyhanded approach, but if so, it aint the us.

There are a whole lot of prisoners in the land of the free, and relatively few people willing to stand up for them in the home of the brave. They're The Bad Ones, and we don't want to be associated....for reasons.....gee, it's almost like we know that criminals and criminal adjacent folks aren't treated very well, or something.

[bennyboy]

Right.  And we should lock up black people at birth because they're more likely to break the law.  You can't take away someone's rights because of what you think they might do.  That's applying a generality to something specific, and in the case of individual people, it's textbook bigotry.  Maybe you need a dictionary.  And you're still posting red herrings instead of justifying your central argument.  When are you go to do that?

You can literally take away people's rights because of what you think they might do.  Drink and drive?  Bye bye license-- because if you've driven drunk, I suspect you might do it again. Harm or threten to harm other citizens? Bye bye liberty-- because if you're done those things, you're likely to do them again.

I don't know you very well, but you seem to be unhinging pretty fast. In just two posts, we've gone from explaining positions and ideas to you positing giant-font definitions, accusing me of bigotry and so on. Meme images soon to follow, I'm guessing. Let me just skip straight to that part and say I suppose this is the end of the line for us.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Don't think I need a diagnosis to show that his brain is clearly deteriorating. If someone with severe autism walks into the room and starts talking to me, I'm probably not going to need to know their exact diagnosis to realize that something is up with them and that they are neuro-atypical. It's called the eye test, and with Biden, yes, I do believe my lying eyes. Boru brought up how Obama made some gaffes before too. Well, show me a video compilation from Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Pete Buttigieg, or Beto, or Cory Booker, etc. that shows them looking as bad as Biden did in that compilation.

What you are doing is playing semantics here, helios. Yes, I do not know Biden's exact diagnosis, so if you want to be strictly technical with the word 'prove' then sure, proof only exists in mathematics if we are going to take that statement completely literally.

No, what I'm doing is telling you are not qualified to assess someone's mental state and a youtube video of gaffes is not enough to do so. So this rant is pointless whining for me stating that fact.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You can literally take away people's rights because of what you think they might do.  Drink and drive?  Bye bye license-- because if you've driven drunk, I suspect you might do it again. Harm or threten to harm other citizens? Bye bye liberty-- because if you're done those things, you're likely to do them again.

Driving isn't a right and the privilege of driving is most often restored after a time so this doesn't support your point and prison is rarely permanent so this also doesn't support your point. Our society gives people second chances and does not rest on the assumption of permanent guilt and if it did that would be irrational and dumb.

I don't know you very well, but you seem to be unhinging pretty fast. In just two posts, we've gone from explaining positions and ideas to you positing giant-font definitions, accusing me of bigotry and so on. Meme images soon to follow, I'm guessing. Let me just skip straight to that part and say I suppose this is the end of the line for us.

Nah she's been totally reasonable you are the one who comes off as unhinged.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There's a reason people are superstitious and prejudicial. It's because it benefits genetic fitness.

Appeal to nature 

How many times has "Trust me, I've changed" been followed by a 5th rape, or a 2nd murder victim, or a wife going back to a husband and shortly thereafter receiving her 100th beating? Hint: it's common as fuck.

And how many times has it not? 

As for bigotry-- what bigotry would that be? Bigotry against convicted felons? What are you even talking about?

Considering this is an argument Conservatives use against black people .....

[Angrboda]

Right.  And we should lock up black people at birth because they're more likely to break the law.  You can't take away someone's rights because of what you think they might do.  That's applying a generality to something specific, and in the case of individual people, it's textbook bigotry.  Maybe you need a dictionary.  And you're still posting red herrings instead of justifying your central argument.  When are you go to do that?

You can literally take away people's rights because of what you think they might do.  Drink and drive?  Bye bye license-- because if you've driven drunk, I suspect you might do it again.  Harm or threten to harm other citizens?  Bye bye liberty-- because if you're done those things, you're likely to do them again.

I don't know you very well, but you seem to be unhinging pretty fast.  In just two posts, we've gone from explaining positions and ideas to you positing giant-font definitions, accusing me of bigotry and so on.  Meme images soon to follow, I'm guessing.  Let me just skip straight to that part and say I suppose this is the end of the line for us.

That is satisfactory for me as well. Thank you for a spirited discussion. Perhaps we can amicably discuss a less charged topic in future.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fuxxake...it's the song that never fucking ends.

Hey - I' d be happy to never comment on anything he/she/it ever says if only he/she/it would do likewise....


Tickled pink in fact...

I don't see the point of allowing anyone else to determine how I behave when it's a race to the bottom.

[Nay_Sayer]

Right.  And we should lock up black people at birth because they're more likely to break the law.  You can't take away someone's rights because of what you think they might do.  That's applying a generality to something specific, and in the case of individual people, it's textbook bigotry.  Maybe you need a dictionary.  And you're still posting red herrings instead of justifying your central argument.  When are you go to do that?

You can literally take away people's rights because of what you think they might do.  Drink and drive?  Bye bye license-- because if you've driven drunk, I suspect you might do it again.  Harm or threten to harm other citizens?  Bye bye liberty-- because if you're done those things, you're likely to do them again.

I don't know you very well, but you seem to be unhinging pretty fast.  In just two posts, we've gone from explaining positions and ideas to you positing giant-font definitions, accusing me of bigotry and so on.  Meme images soon to follow, I'm guessing.  Let me just skip straight to that part and say I suppose this is the end of the line for us.

Being drunk isn't an ethic race. Your analogy is terribly flawed