Woke reporter SHUTS DOWN my Interview when I expose her as a racist.
She says it is not possible to be racist toward white people. When I show her that simple logic disproves everything she is saying, she is forced to get up & end the conversation.
I know that’s what you’re saying, but it’s still the same silly “luck” argument, and also based on an incorrect assumption. I inherited it from my ancestors who worked their asses off to give it to me, just as I work my ass off to be able to give generational wealth to my children.
Even if I were to grant you your assumption, that I didn’t earn it, then people not born here definitely didn’t earn it. If I don’t deserve what I have, why do they deserve what I have. Stupid socialist thinking.
No matter what a country as a concept has come to mean to you, it is very obvious that countries originally grew out of territorial claims by kin groups and evolved into this mess we have before us.
Your statement is circular. What is a thing? It is what it is. What is a country? “It’s this thing we have in front of us.” Or even worse, “it’s this utopian vision I have in my head.”
@NotATrumpCard@billybinion “Whatever the case” means you admit the framing is nonsensical. Essentially you’re saying “even if you’re right, I’m still right”.
Your argument has fallen apart, but you can’t let go of your conclusion. That’s irrational.
The Pitbull debate is so funny to me because the only dog that ever attacked my lab was a Pitbull at a dog park. I can’t bring my sons to my mothers house because she has pitbulls that bark non stop and would likely try to rip my sons to pieces, a Pitbull mauled my oldest sons cat to the point where the only way to end her suffering was to shoot her.
It’s not all pitbulls but somehow it’s coincidentally almost always a Pitbull
@billybinion Is it your belief, then that your soul was randomly shot into your body like a random card being dealt on a poker table?
Your framing makes no sense otherwise. There’s no possibility “you” could have been born as someone else, or it wouldn’t have been you.
Of course one person could not be another person, but people get confused because they assume because they can imagine it, it must be a possibility. So I find it more effective to use inanimate objects as examples.
Could this rock have been that rock? Could this chair have been that chair? Even down to the molecular scale, could a particular atom or molecule have been a different atom or molecule? It then becomes obvious that the question makes no sense, and presupposes a belief system they likely reject explicitly.
@memeticsisyphus@Will_Tanner_1 The details of who EXACTLY gets to vote are complicated, sure, but the general concept that some people shouldn’t get to vote should not be controversial.
Incompetent people should never get to have a say over how other people live.
We look at schooling/herd behavior in animals and think how silly, but from a statistical standpoint, it must work better than the alternative. Stand out and you have a small chance of a big success and a large chance of being eaten. Alternatively, blend in and have a much larger chance of being overlooked, albeit with zero chance of big success.
@BretWeinstein People reason from their intuition and priors and justify their conclusions after the fact. Intuition seems tied to temperament, so in a sense, perhaps they are correct to think that way except it's a temperament thing instead of a moral thing - which isn't that far off.
@DataRepublican It’s just different brands of the same collectivist garbage. The gestalt is essentially the same. The sophists will argue particulars in hopes of confusing vulnerable minds, but it’s not different in any real or meaningful sense.
If you donated money to anyone claiming to be Shiloh Hendrix on Twitter, file a chargeback immediately. It is easy. You will get your money back and the perp will be hit with $25-$35 fees for each chargeback.
He'll find himself banned from opening new financial accounts.