Liberal Forum

Skans » 03 Jan 2024, 12:53 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 12:53 pm

You're right - they don't know how to structure a premise.  Some of the better debate topics will be 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment freedom of speech or even so-called freedom of religion (establishment clause), Abortion and Capital punishment.   There is enough ambiguity and plenty of nuance to be discussed and debated.

But, these topics have been beaten to death.  The Israel-Hamas war presents lots of facts and lots of misinformation to be batted around.  I wish someone could develop a premise to debate concerning physics or the structure of intelligence.   Too "esoteric" I know.

Structure of intelligence.. could be interesting. 

Non-political topics that I would be interested in debating as well are 1. What is more responsible for the behavior of serial killers; genetics or environment
2. Why some nations fall into the trap of communism/socialism and some do not?

impartialobserver » 03 Jan 2024, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 1:00 pm

Structure of intelligence.. could be interesting. 

Non-political topics that I would be interested in debating as well are 1. What is more responsible for the behavior of serial killers; genetics or environment
2. Why some nations fall into the trap of communism/socialism and some do not?

You playing separation of academia, arts, economics, politics, religions, social justifications people typecast themselves as characters on a world stage believing life isn't self evident genetics actually eternally separates all biological replacements in sequence of arriving forward one at a time, now.

Relative timing ancestros adapting as displaced vs relative time semantics people pretend not to know how they got here in their own skin, ancestral lineage, this atmosphere, this solar system, this galaxy, this moment living is a constant adapt or become extinct situation for all reproductions here now.

Reasonable doubt doesn't lead to resolution at all. Does create the idea of restitution for not granting human rights to one intellectual group or another when all groups obey the same system of denying how genetics sustains ancestors as existing in plain sight only alive since conceived to replace their previous generation gaps forward, one at a time.

R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 12:23 pm

No, it isn't....makes me wonder why you can't.

show me....

Not really....dying at enormous cost to society because you're a slack jawed rube is not a "political" stand, it's a tragic consequence of the absence of moron eating predators.

That's objectively true.

Hold of on that queefing until you're doing the answering, bitch.

I think I have answered all your questions. 

You (and other liberals) whine about "misinformation" from the Trump administration. But, as a group, liberals label people pointing out the definition of the word "vaccine" changing during the Wuhan Virus pandemic as liars and said things were being taken out of context. It is a fact that a vaccine (until liberals needed cover) was defined as something that provided immunity to a specific disease.  That change when the "vaccines" didn't/couldn't provide said immunity...now the accepted definition (by some) is something that increases your "immune response".  They blamed it on the WHO...but they don't define words that are already defined.  Don't believe that happened?  In archived versions of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of vaccine is " a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease."  Now, that definition is " a preparation that is administered – as by injection – to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease."  That is true misinformation...but liberals like that definition.

What I find funny (and probably a lie) is the comment of an editor at large for M-W: "Merriam-Webster adds definitions and evolves existing ones to accurately report on how words are used," ..."  If you use that logic, if thousands of people started calling a "very tall buildings of many stories" a banana rather than a skyscraper, Merriam-Webster would change the definition of banana.

Oh...before you ask: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 354415001/

 
 

impartialobserver » 03 Jan 2024, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 1:00 pm

Structure of intelligence.. could be interesting. 

Non-political topics that I would be interested in debating as well are 1. What is more responsible for the behavior of serial killers; genetics or environment
2. Why some nations fall into the trap of communism/socialism and some do not?
 

Those would be interesting.  Without research, on your #1, I'd say physiological.  Could be genetic, but not necessarily.  People tend to assume that people who are born with a deformities are the result of genetics.  A deformity can be physiological yet still developmental and not genetic.  Such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

As for the 2nd topic, that would take a little more thought.

ConsRule » 03 Jan 2024, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 1:46 pm

I think I have answered all your questions. 

You (and other liberals) whine about "misinformation" from the Trump administration. But, as a group, liberals label people pointing out the definition of the word "vaccine" changing during the Wuhan Virus pandemic as liars and said things were being taken out of context. It is a fact that a vaccine (until liberals needed cover) was defined as something that provided immunity to a specific disease.  That change when the "vaccines" didn't/couldn't provide said immunity...now the accepted definition (by some) is something that increases your "immune response".  They blamed it on the WHO...but they don't define words that are already defined.  Don't believe that happened?  In archived versions of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of vaccine is " a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease."  Now, that definition is " a preparation that is administered – as by injection – to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease."  That is true misinformation...but liberals like that definition.

What I find funny (and probably a lie) is the comment of an editor at large for M-W: "Merriam-Webster adds definitions and evolves existing ones to accurately report on how words are used," ..."  If you use that logic, if thousands of people started calling a "very tall buildings of many stories" a banana rather than a skyscraper, Merriam-Webster would change the definition of banana.

Oh...before you ask: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 354415001/

There's really no point in entertaining this ****...
 

Skans » 03 Jan 2024, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 1:49 pm

Those would be interesting.  Without research, on your #1, I'd say physiological.  Could be genetic, but not necessarily.  People tend to assume that people who are born with a deformities are the result of genetics.  A deformity can be physiological yet still developmental and not genetic.  Such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

As for the 2nd topic, that would take a little more thought.

I know that most on here are experts (real or perceived) in American history. I know enough to get by. My strong suit is Eastern Europe. Mainly because it makes no sense. At various junctures in their history.. there are hundreds/thousands of options and yet they choose the worst (autocratic or communist.. one in the same most times). Bulgaria is the worst. The best climate and soil of any nation in Europe outside of Spain and yet an economic dumpster fire year after year. 

R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 1:50 pm

There's really no point in entertaining this ****...

I was wondering when the old BlackVegetable would raise his ugly head again with the childish strike-through stunt.

Guess we're done...I accept your concession.
 

R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 11:01 am

Oblige your correspondent to post his/her Rules of Engagement and to stipulate to abide by them.

That will clear this room, in a heartbeat.

Not as quick as you farting an opinion.

ConsRule » 03 Jan 2024, 1:56 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 1:56 pm

I was wondering when the old BlackVegetable would raise his ugly head again with the childish strike-through stunt.

Guess we're done...I accept your concession.

Pointless.

Of course you "think" you answer questions, but you know you don't.
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Jan 2024, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 12:16 pm

You have a rather unsavory choice of friends. 

That fruitcake yearns for a government censorship board with broad powers to shut down speech.

Just imagine trying to debate with a truncated universe of ideas and beliefs. It would be double-plus bad.

To answer my question, I now see that Cannonpointer referred to usa360 when he mentioned someone's desire to promote government censorship. I will assert that, despite widespread opinion, the government isn't the only source of censorship. Media corporations have practiced defacto censorship for decades through the consolidation of media, which denies an ever-increasing percentage of people access to media. The consolidation of radio station ownership and the advent of automated radio stations have helped destroy local news and public affairs coverage and talk radio in hundreds of small towns. The closing of hundreds of newspapers throughout the past twenty years has also eliminated local news coverage and the voice of ordinary citizens, known as letters to the editor. The restoration of the Fairness Doctrine would help combat disinformation. However, the political right generally opposes such a rebirth because it supported the Fairness Doctrine's elimination in the first place. 

 

impartialobserver » 03 Jan 2024, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 1:53 pm

I know that most on here are experts (real or perceived) in American history. I know enough to get by. My strong suit is Eastern Europe. Mainly because it makes no sense. At various junctures in their history.. there are hundreds/thousands of options and yet they choose the worst (autocratic or communist.. one in the same most times). Bulgaria is the worst. The best climate and soil of any nation in Europe outside of Spain and yet an economic dumpster fire year after year.

I watched a great youtube video on the middle east from about 1,000 BC to about 500 AD. It graphically explained why there was so much violence in the area now known as Israel, even though at the time it had no major cities.  I would never have guessed it.  Trade routs.  In order for Mediterranean nations to access the Orient for silk, spices, etc, they had to go through Israel.  So, the major players, Egyptian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Hittite Empire (Turkey) and Persian Empire were constantly fighting to control access to the Orient trade routs, which happened to crisscross through the Holy Land.

Now, Look at where Bulgaria is.  I haven't studied this, so I'm just taking a guess, applying some of the same logic.  The land now known as Bulgaria was once surrounded by the Greek empire, the Hittite Empire, and across the pond, the Egyptian Empire.  Basically, access to Europe had to go through Bulgaria.  I believe that there was even once a Bulgarian Empire that encompassed much of Greece.   Its all about controlling access to trade.

HarveyMushman » 03 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm

To answer my question, I now see that Cannonpointer referred to usa360 when he mentioned someone's desire to promote government censorship. I will assert that, despite widespread opinion, the government isn't the only source of censorship. Media corporations have practiced defacto censorship for decades through the consolidation of media, which denies an ever-increasing percentage of people access to media. The consolidation of radio station ownership and the advent of automated radio stations have helped destroy local news and public affairs coverage and talk radio in hundreds of small towns. The closing of hundreds of newspapers throughout the past twenty years has also eliminated local news coverage and the voice of ordinary citizens, known as letters to the editor. The restoration of the Fairness Doctrine would help combat disinformation. However, the political right generally opposes such a rebirth because it supported the Fairness Doctrine's elimination in the first place.

Democrats are all about hoaxes, censorship, and lies......it's plain to see you are clueless about the Fairness Doctrine which was a thinly veiled attempt at subsidizing the failing liberal presence on AM radio.
 

Cannonpointer » 03 Jan 2024, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 12:02 pm

Now that you have brought that subforum to my attention, I have a thought.

People could have their serious debate there, sub rosa. Once the debate is over, I will gladly move the debate to the NHB for everyone to sully.

From what I have seen in the past, the two biggest reasons "serious debate" subforums on sites like this fail are...

1) Lack of participation from the membership

and

2) The lack of routine and fairly stringent moderation

To be successful, it basically needs a full time babysitter and a willing base of regular participants.

Good luck on finding either of those here.

 



 

impartialobserver » 03 Jan 2024, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 12:26 pm

So, in short, they are lazy. They could research a topic beyond their comfort zone but are choosing not to. I find that a lot of what folks claim to be evidence can't be proven. It is largely filling in the blanks and then blasting away and calling names because I do not buy into their filling in the blanks.

Correct. 

I have actually TAUGHT people how to get to the real science - TOLD THEM WHERE TO LOOK AND HOW.

They prefer to gain their "knowledge" predigested.
 

HarveyMushman » 03 Jan 2024, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 12:49 pm

Are you referring to usa360 as the one who "yearns for a government censorship board with broad powers to shut down speech," Cannonpointer?

I am indeed. His second post of the thread confirms it.
 

RedheadedStranger » 03 Jan 2024, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 2:54 pm

From what I have seen in the past, the two biggest reasons "serious debate" subforums on sites like this fail are...

1) Lack of participation from the membership

and

2) The lack of routine and fairly stringent moderation

To be successful, it basically needs a full time babysitter and a willing base of regular participants.

Good luck on finding either of those here.

yea but?
 In my travels .. I've noticed. folks who complain about no intellectual conversation- just yap on... without a thought of their own? just saying.  
 

HarveyMushman » 03 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm

To answer my question, I now see that Cannonpointer referred to usa360 when he mentioned someone's desire to promote government censorship. I will assert that, despite widespread opinion, the government isn't the only source of censorship. Media corporations have practiced defacto censorship for decades through the consolidation of media, which denies an ever-increasing percentage of people access to media.

Yes, it's called capitalism, and it is governing us as a marketplace. You will notice that countries have borders, and we do not. That is because we are not a country - we are a SHAM of a country whose "elected" leaders serve at the pleasure of the oligarchs: a corporatocracy. And we are a market place - with a logo that looks a lot like our old flag, back when we were a nation. I remember on 9'11 they put some handles on the damned thing and made it look like a shopping bag. That told me what time it was.

HarveyMushman » 03 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm

The consolidation of radio station ownership and the advent of automated radio stations have helped destroy local news and public affairs coverage and talk radio in hundreds of small towns. The closing of hundreds of newspapers throughout the past twenty years has also eliminated local news coverage and the voice of ordinary citizens, known as letters to the editor. The restoration of the Fairness Doctrine would help combat disinformation. However, the political right generally opposes such a rebirth because it supported the Fairness Doctrine's elimination in the first place.

Yes, the knee jerk right HATES the fairness doctrine - ape trained to do so by the very forces of consolidation that persecute their lives and eat out their polity.

But among the many fine things the orange buffoon accomplished is that he got the conjobs to peek around the corporate tautology to which they had thither-to been enslaved and at least dare to start questioning it. They got a little practice with the questioning muscle. It's still not nearly as strong as the pontificating muscle - but it's been isolated and identified. That's a start. We can build from there. They know the difference between the sexes - unless they watch fixed noise. Then they think bruce jenner is a gal.
 

RedheadedStranger » 03 Jan 2024, 2:54 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 2:54 pm

From what I have seen in the past, the two biggest reasons "serious debate" subforums on sites like this fail are...

1) Lack of participation from the membership

and

2) The lack of routine and fairly stringent moderation

To be successful, it basically needs a full time babysitter and a willing base of regular participants.

Good luck on finding either of those here.

Well, I strive to be an on-the-spot mod.

Hardly a week goes by that I don't have to get around to doing some damned thing for some damned body. 

I have people to troll, soks to manage, despotisms to dream up, plots to participate in - and on top of everything, I still have my stupid mod duties. I hired a new guy, deezer, and he's almost as worthless as I am 

This place sucks ***. I would quit, if another site would have me. 

On another note.. reached out to KFools (or at least I think so). No response. Have attempted to buy the domain name but no dice. If I was to resurrect it, I would have to have it called liberalforum.us or liberalforum.info. Have recently purchased two other domains and am getting them ready to go live first week of february.

Huey » 03 Jan 2024, 11:26 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 11:26 am

People do confuse the 1st A, which what government can do regarding speech, to what an institution can do.

People MOSTLY confuse publicly owned corporations with privately owned ones. If you are PUBLICLY OWNED, you have to obey public policy. Hobby Lobby wasn't - which is why they won out in their decision to violate public policy regarding a specific provison of obama care dealing with abortifacients.

And if you are INDEMNIFIED from liability because you are a public forum, then you cannot practice censorship, as you have received a GOVERNMENT dispensation and are acting in a GOVERNMENT capacity.

People also confuse corporations with PEOPLE - the only species which the Constitution recognizes as having RIGHTS.

Corporations have no rights - though you have argued quite ineffectively in the past that they do. In order to even CONSIDER that corporations have rights, you have to take an enormous **** on the D of I and the men who fought to enact it - which you did.

The D of I uncategorically reserves all rights for human beings. Indeed, it declares as a matter of public law - if you understand the concept of law even barely - that rights come from GOD IN HEAVEN and are given exclusively to HUMAN KIND. Not to corporations.

So, the number of rights on the earth is precise. It is every human, times the number of rights God grants. That is it - no more rights to be dispensed on the whims of mid-wits. This means that in order to give CORPORATIONS rights, you have to steal them from people.

Only a slave brain would argue that corporations have rights. You need to find a way out of being a mental slave, boy.