Raider5678

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

AFAIK there is no gay gene, but I'm far from an expert on the matter, so there could be various gene combinations which result in homosexuality.

I read a paper on someone supposedly finding a "gay" gene which was referenced by numerous politicians, etc. However, it didn't pass peer review for reasons I forget. Something to do with confirmation bias, not so much actually proving it to be a gay gene. As for genetic structures, that's yet to be proven/disproven.

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think FoxNews can be censored. I don't think FoxNews should be censored. Freedom of speech protects their right to render  their  opinions. However just like the WWF was forced to change it's name to the WWE because too many people thought it was real so to should FoxNews have to drop it's News label. It is just a collection of media personality spouting off their opinions. It is no more a news channels than in Howard Stern's Sirius satellite Channels are News channels. 

WWE changed their name because of a trademark lawsuit with the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF).

And I don't think they should be forced to drop their News label. The ability to decide what is and isn't news is not a power I want in the hands of the government. That might as well be Trump's wet dream.

"You get a fake news label, and you get a fake news label, and you get a fake news label....."

17 hours ago, iNow said:

You’re no better than those you despise if you too are willing to abandon common decency and equal protections. 

I never said that's what I wanted.

Dimreeper is in the habit of saying some random statement that ultimately means nothing. I was replying in turn. If you're gonna call me out for it being irrelevant, then call him out on it too.

On 2/26/2019 at 6:19 AM, dimreepr said:

the bottom line is. She deserves her human rights.

She doesn't think the almost 3,000 who died in 9/11 deserve theirs.

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

That's because democrats deal with it and move on. Unlike republicans who double down and conflate it into something it's not.

I'll keep this statement in mind the next time someone claims the Republicans never bother to look at their own actions. 

On 2/19/2019 at 11:33 AM, iNow said:

The bigger challenge he will face now is that he's not the only one advocating progressive policies.

Are the other candidates really advocating policies as progressive as his though?

On 2/24/2019 at 9:11 AM, dimreepr said:

Not too many kids get life for their mistakes.

If I install a stupid thing on a computer just because I want to, and I get a virus on it that ruins it, I'm responsible for paying it. Yes, I made a "mistake", and I pay the consequences. In this case, actual money.

If I forget to dot the I on a letter, and someone mistakes it for an L, then I simply explain it. Yes, I made a "mistake" and I pay the consequences. In this case, I have to explain it.

If I rape someone, I got to jail. Yes, I made a "mistake", and I pay the consequences. In this case, I go to jail.

If I leave the country and join a terrorist organization that beheads people, trades child sex slaves, and calls for the total destruction and enslavement of my country, I get kicked out of my country. Yes, I made a "mistake", and I pay the consequences. In this case, I get kicked out.

@dimreepr We all make mistakes. However, not all mistakes are equal, and likewise, we're still responsible for our own actions. 

If you want to disagree with how it's handled, and feel she should get a trial(as she is), and that it should follow the law, then I'd agree. She deserves her trial.

However, if you disagree with her getting consequences this severe for her actions, I'd disagree with you. 

I remember being a kid somewhere and someone told me we would run out of gold to put in our electronics eventually.(Now that I'm older I find it unlikely)

Out of curiosity, was any plutonium created? Or is that not created when stars merge?

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Truth what? Your truth that any protest by liberals is an unruly mob?

This is the same exact type of bull shit false equivalence you have a habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of. That isn't what he said, and your repeated pathetic attempts to lie about what he says is disgusting.

We can have a perfectly normal discussion without you constantly accusing him of trying to censor you, creating false equivalences, making up false narratives, derailing the thread,  making a mountain out of a molehill, and making bogus assertions.

To quote you:

On 1/24/2019 at 6:36 PM, rangerx said:

Grow TF up.

9 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I suppose it's germane to the discussion in one sense though, that any excuse will be made to distract from the underlying issue.

It's the age old tactic of making an molehill of a mountain by making an a mountain of a molehill.

Do you have anything to add to this discussion besides repeatedly attacking J.C. MacSwell and flipping out on him for everything he says?

26 minutes ago, rangerx said:

We are two pages into this and you've I have effectively derailed this into yet another one of your  my off topic claims and projections attacks against you.

FTFY

57 minutes ago, rangerx said:

That's little more than an over the top politically charged talking point that rolls off your tongue at every turn,

Your definition of politically charged is telling the truth?

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

It fascinates me that you assumed I was talking to you despite not quoting anyone. 

So you were talking to Ten Oz? He was the only person who said anything prior to me.

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Especially when a so-called president calls the media "an enemy of the people", it's no surprise that partisan malcontents will take up arms.

President calls the media an enemy of the people.

It's inciting violence.

Media makes jokes like "Where's John Wilke's Booth when you need him?" 

It's freedom of speech.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Is it possible that democrats denounced some of these attacks, rather than saying, oh, I don't know, something about having good people on both sides?

Oh, so if Democrats denounce the violence, then they're all good.

ALright. Republicans have denounced almost every single attack, including the one where pipe bombs were sent. 

So they're all good.

Glad we can agree, so let's move on.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

People have been calling AOC a witch, and there is a biblical verse about calling for the death of witches. Do you think the people spreading that story are unaware of the connection?

People have been calling Trump "Hitler" and "Worse than Osama Bin Laden."

Do you think people spreading those stories are unaware of the connection?

If people calling AOC are actually trying to call for her to be killed, then so are the people calling Trump Hitler and Osama Bin Laden. Therefore, the whole lot of them should be thrown in jail.

However, that doesn't fit your narrative. It's only one-sided where Republicans are advocating violence against Democrats.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Pointing to “other sides” ignores the actual underlying problem. It’s the wrong conversation to have and is a distraction.

 

Pointing to "other sides" in direct response to a statement "It's only their side, not ours" is pointing out the hypocrisy that is there.

The key to solving the underlying problem of those inciting violence is to acknowledge the problem exists, instead of denying it where it's not in your favor.

I agree, a lot of what these people are saying is wrong. I haven't said it wasn't. I don't think anybody here is. But the fact that it's supposedly one side is utterly false, and I will point it out. 

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Rand Paul's neighbor attacked him over domestic issues the two had with each other. It had nothing to do with politics or the media. Your examples are just whataboutism.

1

Ah. One example was incorrect. Clearly, all 550 of them were just whataboutism. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Is the a link behind the way conservative media covers AOC, Pelosi, Booker, Waters, and etc and these Domestic Terrorists?  Does Conservative leaning media have a responsibility to change their tone and reporting related to those who are now being repeated for murder by Right Wing Extremist? Does the President? 

No. There is free speech. They're not there calling for death. Just because there are a bunch of idiots who try to blame the media for their actions, doesn't mean it's so. Everyone has individual responsibility for what they do. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

This isn't a typical both sides issue.

A Republican party office was burned to the ground.

A Republican senator was beaten half to death in his yard.

A Republican Congressional candidate was attacked by a man with a switchblade.

There have been over 550 recorded physical attacks on Republicans* in the last year.

But it's one side.

*This is only counting ones where the motive was that they were Republicans. A random robbery against a republican doesn't count, for example.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Does Conservative leaning media have a responsibility to change their tone and reporting related to those who are now being repeated for murder by Right Wing Extremist?

Does liberal-leaning media have the same responsibility?

MSNBC's host declared  Trump worse than Osama Bin Laden. We killed Osama Bin Laden, in case you didn't know.

Or celeberties asking "Where's John Wilkes Booth when you need him?" 

But I'm sure she was just referencing peaceful protest there.

6 hours ago, Carrock said:

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623

I read the link. Citizenship can be revoked as long as she doesn't become stateless. At the moment, according to Bangladesh law, she is a citizen of Bangladesh. So if it comes down to who's doing something illegal, it's Bangladesh.

Either way, your narrative that she can be punished with something that those over 21 can't be, is completely false. It has much less to do with age, and more to do with if you have citizenship to another country or not. She turned her back on the UK. 15 at the time or not, she committed treason, and she's been convicted of that by extension of confession.(She confessed to committing something that is known as treason. So it's a confession to committing treason by extension.)

And finally, she doesn't want a citizenship to the UK. The second she lands on the ground, she'll be arrested, sentenced, and locked in prison for a significant period of time.

According to her, she's shocked the UK would do something like this. She thinks it's unjust that the UK sees her as a threat.

I mean. All she did was support ISIS. And say that the 22 civilians who died by a suicide bomber in her home country deserved it. 

How dare they? She's just an innocent little girl, after all. All these big mean men are just bullying her.

Stateless or not, I don't see why the UK can't just revoke her citizenship. 

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what if she's 2

This is a complete red herring.

She's not 2.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Is that your opinion?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

Or saying children should not be punished more than adults. If she'd been 21 her citizenship couldn't be revoked, according to legal precedents.

Could you link me to the law that states this?

52 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"Do you know my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled?"

Yes. Too many people attempting to reduce the responsibility of others to accept the consequences of their actions. 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think the UK has a very meaningful treason law. I can't remember (and can't be bothered to check!) but I think it is just about attempts to insult the king, or something equally silly.

The UK's high treason is defined as this:

"Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession."

And I agree. She deserves a trial to determine the punishment. But until then, she's already been convicted of high treason against the United Kingdom.

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

Although I feel as a human she should get a trial.

And she will. It's already in the process. 

12 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Is life as a stateless person trivial?

 

He was referring to what she did.

She didn't simply make an opinion. She acted upon that opinion and supported a declared enemy of the United Kingdom. That is treason. 

16 minutes ago, Carrock said:

And of course, if you're suspected of being complicit in your daughter's actions, you'd be happy to have your own citizenship, like hers, revoked based on secret evidence. You must experience the full weight of your suspected actions.

 

Except this is a red herring.

Because this is not the case.

The evidence is not secret, her parent's citizenship is not being revoked, and it's not suspected actions. It's real actions.

26 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what teenager hasn't made a mistake?

Yes. Some teenage boys rape girls. 

What teenager hasn't made a mistake?

Whether you consider it a mistake or not, you should live with the consequences of your actions. That's called responsibility.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I didn't make any claims about its source or sponsor.

Sorry. I took you saying this:

12 hours ago, iNow said:

Trump will be seriously challenged by Democrats. They're laying the groundwork to paint all democrats as evil socialists who hate freedom, hate business, and who want runaway inflation like Zimbabwe, Venezuela, or whatever other boogeyman resonates with the focus groups.

As saying that Trump/his administration was laying groundwork.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Since you have here made a claim about the source, maybe you can help me learn more by sharing who actually DID sponsor or share it? I'm source agnostic, but it would be cool to know where it came from.

Neptune's Teacup rears it's head again. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was done by the Trump Administration.

Either way, why would Trumps administration be sponsoring ads for the UK? As I pointed out before, Facebook allows you to select your target demographic, and it won't show ads to someone outside the set region. So to me, that's enough to say it's not being sponsored by the Trump Administration.

6 hours ago, DrP said:

- it was clearly a message direct from the Trump administration. 

How so?

6 hours ago, DrP said:

Is this a prelude to Trumps WWIII campaign against socialist countries?

No. 

6 hours ago, DrP said:

If that makes me a socialist then so be it.

It doesn't make you socialist. 

Before you give into fear and irrationality of that ad being a pre-lude of world war 3 or something, perhaps you should take a step back and think it through for a moment.

You're scared of a video explaining why primarily socialist countries are failing. Why? 

It seems like you've bought into the idea that just because someone opposes socialism makes them an evil capitalist nazi or something. I mean read what you've said. You already think of people who oppose socialism as only supporting healthcare, education, and food for the rich. Do you really have absolutely no idea what that's about?

5 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

I know PragerU which is unsurprisingly not a University was doing something similar here. They hope to brainwash us all. Hopefully doesn't get much traction.

Brainwashing conspiracies now? 

This is a forum of science, is it not?

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Your guess is as good as mine, but we can't treat these targeted propaganda campaigns in a vacuum. The wedge issues and erosion of democratic ideals... the splits into us and them... is a global issue following similar playbooks. I could equally ask why I'm seeing stuff about Brexit in the US. It's because their algorithm has identified me as someone interested and potentially influenceable, regardless of my region. 

The FB algorithm isn't so basic that it doesn't identify by region. It knows what country you're in. I've worked with it before, you can literally select states, regions, countries, or distances to a certain point for the ad to show.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Broad brush strokes: 2020 election is coming up. Trump will be seriously challenged by Democrats. They're laying the groundwork to paint all democrats as evil socialists who hate freedom, hate business, and who want runaway inflation like Zimbabwe, Venezuela, or whatever other boogeyman resonates with the focus groups. It's to gin up fear, much like the border "crisis" and caravans we heard so much about in the 2018 midterms.

Come on iNow. You, as much as anyone, know's to fact check this stuff.

The advertisement was not sponsored by the Trump Administration in order to prepare for a 2020 election.

5 hours ago, DrP said:

Is your brexit stuff just news or targeted opinion/propaganda?  I get the feeling Trump likes brexit and would be happy about a separation of the UK from the EU. It would make any war with the EU in the future much easier to get going and politically successful.  I hope I am wrong. It's ironic that that last war in Europe that involved the US was AGAINST a far right wing leader.  Now we have a far right leader attacking the system that we set up in place of what we once toppled.

4

There's no way you really think Trump is as far right as Nazi Germany was. That's just straight out insulting to millions of people who genuinely suffered and died under them for you to even compare it to that.

Additionally, you're way to paranoid about Trump planning some grand war or something.

You do realize we're still a democracy, and that you need to get the support of the president and congress to launch an offensive war in any meaningful manner?

You're about as bad as all the far right extremists in terms of fear mongering.

42 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Not sure where you got your info, but it seems as though the NHS would recommend a second surgery, and it looks like it's covered. 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/hip-replacement/ 

From the link:

A hip replacement is a major surgery, so is normally only recommended if other treatments, such as physiotherapy or steroid injections, haven't helped reduce pain or improve mobility.

This is similar to what I said. They don't typically cover it. They'll often prescribe pain medication instead.

Note, I didn't say they'll never cover it. I just said they typically don't. 

However this is off topic and I"m not going to reply further than this.

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And your point is?

My point was that it wasn't as simple as DrP made it out to be.

13 minutes ago, DrP said:

Makes you wonder how lucky you are living in a first world country the west where we get healthcare as part of our national insurance contributions. It's worth paying the un-noticeable extra tax so everyone can have a safety net if they need medical care. Medical care should not be for the rich and wealthy alone.  

 

Even in countries with national health care, they don't typically cover this. They'll often prescribe pain medication instead. And in the few countries that do, patients often wait years, if not the rest of their life, for the surgery.