In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote: That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable.
Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient.
Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles.
That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid
As if shutting down the speakers is the way to stop a message from normalizing. I remember the criticism of Jimmy Fallon having Trump on and joking around ... various speakers condemned it as normalizing Trump. Now he's president.
You're on the side of smearing things you don't politically like as hate. I hope someday you realize the hysteria is counterproductive and there's no wind in the sails of Milo if everyone can hear him if a campus group invites him and is free to, I don't know, reject Milo's message and the way they says it? Puritanism-nouveau, Thy name is Thieving Magpie.
being complacent of hate is to be complicit of hate. Just because you don't believe in stopping hate does not mean we should comply to your conclusions.
No, you'll have to start to enlarge your intellectual engagement with messages that aren't up your path. There aren't two subdivisions of "hate" and "not-hate" such that messages you disagree with are automatically hate. But frankly, your last two messages in this chain are about as much of unintentional confessions that I could hope for so I don't have to go on.
On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote: That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable.
Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient.
Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles.
That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid
As if shutting down the speakers is the way to stop a message from normalizing. I remember the criticism of Jimmy Fallon having Trump on and joking around ... various speakers condemned it as normalizing Trump. Now he's president.
You're on the side of smearing things you don't politically like as hate. I hope someday you realize the hysteria is counterproductive and there's no wind in the sails of Milo if everyone can hear him if a campus group invites him and is free to, I don't know, reject Milo's message and the way they says it? Puritanism-nouveau, Thy name is Thieving Magpie.
being complacent of hate is to be complicit of hate. Just because you don't believe in stopping hate does not mean we should comply to your conclusions.
No, you'll have to start to enlarge your intellectual engagement with messages that aren't up your path. There aren't two subdivisions of "hate" and "not-hate" such that messages you disagree with are automatically hate. But frankly, your last two messages in this chain are about as much of unintentional confessions that I could hope for so I don't have to go on.
Just because he disagrees with it and you don't doesn't automatically make it hate or not hate. If you want to demonstrate that the things Milo says are not primarily hateful, then I suggest you make that argument using evidence from the source, rather than just saying "just because you say it doesn't make it so, neener neener".
That being said, some more concrete evidence from the other side of the debate would also not go amiss.
EDIT: On the other hand, I can think of things I'd rather read than a dissection of this Milo's political and social views. However, if we're going to just leave the issue alone, then leave it with a polite agreement to disagree rather than talking smack about one another.
This has to be the 5th time in the same number of months that Milo is discussed in this thread. And it always boils down the same discussion, without ever reaching agreement. Perhaps the OP should contain page references to certain discussions to prevent identical ones from happening in the future
Reading through this article, I think that if Trump does more of what he did earlier (listen to the numerous smart people in Washington), he could, with his headstrong determination to get his way, actually cause some good change for America when it comes to trade with China https://www.ft.com/content/40825e36-ef3f-11e6-930f-061b01e23655
Being president is harder than Donald Trump thought, according to aides and allies who say that he’s growing increasingly frustrated with the challenges of running the massive federal bureaucracy.
In interviews, nearly two dozen people who’ve spent time with Trump in the three weeks since his inauguration said that his mood has careened between surprise and anger as he’s faced the predictable realities of governing, from congressional delays over his cabinet nominations and legal fights holding up his aggressive initiatives to staff in-fighting and leaks.
The administration’s rocky opening days have been a setback for a president who, as a billionaire businessman, sold himself to voters as being uniquely qualified to fix what ailed the nation. Yet it has become apparent, say those close to the president, most of whom requested anonymity to describe the inner workings of the White House, that the transition from overseeing a family business to running the country has been tough on him.
Trump often asks simple questions about policies, proposals and personnel. And, when discussions get bogged down in details, the president has been known to quickly change the subject — to "seem in control at all times," one senior government official said — or direct questions about details to his chief strategist Steve Bannon, his son-in-law Jared Kushner or House Speaker Paul Ryan. Trump has privately expressed disbelief over the ability of judges, bureaucrats or lawmakers to delay — or even stop — him from filling positions and implementing policies.
After Trump grew infuriated by disclosures of his confrontational phone calls with foreign leaders, an investigation was launched into the source of the leaks, according to one White House aide. National Security Council staffers have been instructed to cooperate with inquiries, including requests to inspect their electronic communications, said two sources familiar with the situation. It’s not clear whether the investigation is a formal proceeding, how far along it is or who is conducting it.
The administration is considering limiting the universe of aides with access to the calls or their transcripts, said one administration official, adding that the leaks — and Trump’s anger over them — had created a climate where people are “very careful who they talk to.”
The president and his allies believe career NSC staff assigned from other agencies are out to get them. In turn, some NSC staff believe Trump does not possess the capacity for detail and nuance required to handle the sensitive issues discussed on the calls, and that he has politicized their agency by appointing chief strategist Bannon to the council.
The fetus becomes human when it develops a central nervous system.
This is about where the "soul" gets in, in my particular metaphysical interpretation before that I don't see the zygote as anything but a random clump of cells with a plan. Much like cancer.
It probably isn't a very convincing explanation but I'm sure doctors are able to provide one rooted in hard science.
At any rate, an early-stage embryo is NOT a "human being", especially when compared to actual already-born-and-struggling-about destitute kids to be saved so the entire "save the children" debate is based on bs.
MERCED, Calif. — Jeff Marchini and others in the Central Valley here bet their farms on the election of Donald J. Trump. His message of reducing regulations and taxes appealed to this Republican stronghold, one of Mr. Trump’s strongest bases of support in the state.
As for his promises about cracking down on illegal immigrants, many assumed Mr. Trump’s pledges were mostly just talk. But two weeks into his administration, Mr. Trump has signed executive orders that have upended the country’s immigration laws. Now farmers here are deeply alarmed about what the new policies could mean for their workers, most of whom are unauthorized, and the businesses that depend on them.
“Everything’s coming so quickly,” Mr. Marchini said. “We’re not loading people into buses or deporting them, that’s not happening yet.” As he looked out over a crew of workers bent over as they rifled through muddy leaves to find purple heads of radicchio, he said that as a businessman, Mr. Trump would know that farmers had invested millions of dollars into produce that is growing right now, and that not being able to pick and sell those crops would represent huge losses for the state economy. “I’m confident that he can grasp the magnitude and the anxiety of what’s happening now.”
Mr. Trump’s immigration policies could transform California’s Central Valley, a stretch of lowlands that extends from Sacramento to Bakersfield. Approximately 70 percent of all farmworkers here are living in the United States illegally, according to researchers at University of California, Davis. The impact could reverberate throughout the valley’s precarious economy, where agriculture is by far the largest industry. With 6.5 million people living in the valley, the fields in this state bring in $35 billion a year and provide more of the nation’s food than any other state.
The consequences of a smaller immigrant work force would ripple not just through the orchards and dairies, but also to locally owned businesses, restaurants, schools and even seemingly unrelated industries, like the insurance market.
Many here feel vindicated by the election, and signs declaring “Vote to make America great again” still dot the highways. But in conversations with nearly a dozen farmers, most of whom voted for Mr. Trump, each acknowledged that they relied on workers who provided false documents. And if the administration were to weed out illegal workers, farmers say their businesses would be crippled. Even Republican lawmakers from the region have supported plans that would give farmworkers a path to citizenship.
“If you only have legal labor, certain parts of this industry and this region will not exist,” said Harold McClarty, a fourth-generation farmer in Kingsburg whose operation grows, packs and ships peaches, plums and grapes throughout the country. “If we sent all these people back, it would be a total disaster.”
Mr. McClarty is not just concerned about his business, but also about his work force, he said. Many of them have worked for him year-round for more than a decade, making at least $11 an hour. After immigration officials audited his employee records a few years ago, he was forced to let go of dozens of employees.
“These people had been working for us for a long time, and we depended on them.”
Now he worries that a Trump administration could mandate a Homeland Security Department program called E-verify, which was aimed at stopping the use of fraudulent documents. In all but a few states, the program is voluntary and only a small fraction of businesses use it.
Farmers here have faced a persistent labor shortage for years, in part because of increased policing at the border and the rising prices charged by smugglers who help people sneak across. The once-steady stream of people coming from rural towns in southern Mexico has nearly stopped entirely. The existing field workers are aging, and many of their children find higher-paying jobs outside agriculture.
On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote: That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable.
Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient.
Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles.
That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid
As if shutting down the speakers is the way to stop a message from normalizing. I remember the criticism of Jimmy Fallon having Trump on and joking around ... various speakers condemned it as normalizing Trump. Now he's president.
You're on the side of smearing things you don't politically like as hate. I hope someday you realize the hysteria is counterproductive and there's no wind in the sails of Milo if everyone can hear him if a campus group invites him and is free to, I don't know, reject Milo's message and the way they says it? Puritanism-nouveau, Thy name is Thieving Magpie.
being complacent of hate is to be complicit of hate. Just because you don't believe in stopping hate does not mean we should comply to your conclusions.
No, you'll have to start to enlarge your intellectual engagement with messages that aren't up your path. There aren't two subdivisions of "hate" and "not-hate" such that messages you disagree with are automatically hate. But frankly, your last two messages in this chain are about as much of unintentional confessions that I could hope for so I don't have to go on.
Just because he disagrees with it and you don't doesn't automatically make it hate or not hate. If you want to demonstrate that the things Milo says are not primarily hateful, then I suggest you make that argument using evidence from the source, rather than just saying "just because you say it doesn't make it so, neener neener".
That being said, some more concrete evidence from the other side of the debate would also not go amiss.
Ok here's some concrete evidence. A guy that says stuff like ""Islam is the only group that tells its members , not 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' but when in Rome, demand benefits and rape people" is clearly prioritizing a hateful message over genuine political discourse or even simple truth. We're not smearing him, he's literally peddling hate-speech to ignorant bigots who want their feelings validated. Good luck defending that statement Danglars.
U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, faced boos and jeers from Utahns in his home district during a rowdy town hall Thursday night in the suburbs outside Salt Lake City.
More than 1,000 people packed into the auditorium of Brighton High School for the noisy forum, with hundreds more stuck outside.
Amid near-constant shouts and interruptions, Chaffetz was asked about everything from his controversial public lands bills to efforts to defund Planned Parenthood to President Trump's executive order temporarily prohibiting travelers of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.
But the issue those in attendance raised most was Trump himself, and whether Chaffetz, as head of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, planned to investigate the president's potential business conflicts as vigorously as he did Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Chaffetz reiterated his position that Trump, as president, is exempt from conflict of interest laws and that he would not abuse his authority as committee chairman to go on a "fishing expedition."
Chaffetz later added that he had sent a letter on Thursday to the Office of Government Ethics drawing issue with Trump aide Kellyanne Conway's recent endorsement of merchandise marketed by the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump — but that did little to appease the crowd.
One person who identified herself as a retired Salt Lake City teacher asked Chaffetz what his "line in the sand was" pertaining to Trump's many controversies, to which the congressman replied, "the law."
Organizers brought "Agree" and "Disagree" signs to hold up during the meeting, but most stuck to yelling, booing and the occasional "Do your job!" chant.
Chaffetz was elected to his fifth term representing Utah's 3rd Congressional District last November. The enormous, largely-rural district includes portions of Salt Lake City's suburbs and the city of Provo.
The "rehabilitation" of assad has begun,they can not go to hard on this off course since he was the devil himself before but now he gets the chance to defend and explain himself with this intervieuw that has been widely published. The usa is going to withdraw completely from the Syrian cival war and leave it up to the rusians to deal with isis there.
The PNAC, project for the new American century seems to have been put on hold for a while,it probably was to much anyway. 1600-1700 was the dutch century, 1700-1900 the English century,1900-2000 the American century, 2000-2100 is going to be the Asian/Chinese century.
The "rehabilitation" of assad has begun,they can not go to hard on this off course since he was the devil himself before but now he gets the chance to defend and explain himself with this intervieuw that has been widely published. The usa is going to withdraw completely from the Syrian cival war and leave it up to the rusians to deal with isis there.
Assad has value only if he is the ruler of Syria. after he steps down(end of mandate or something), if he makes it that far, going after him would not be similar with going after Syria. he might be able to live comfortably, until he dies of natural causes somewhere unless someone has and axe to grind with him(on a personal level, or an agency wants to make him an example of <...>).
President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.
The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The report is expected to be presented to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly in coming days, although the administration will not necessarily take actions it recommends.
The plan lays out what it would take to seal the border in three phases of construction of fences and walls covering just over 1,250 miles (2,000 km) by the end of 2020.
With 654 miles (1,046 km) of the border already fortified, the new construction would extend almost the length of the entire border.
Many cost estimates and timelines have been floated since Trump campaigned on the promise of building a wall. The report seen by Reuters is the work of a group commissioned by Kelly as a final step before moving forward with requesting U.S. taxpayer funds from Congress and getting started on construction.
A DHS spokeswoman said the department does "not comment on or confirm the potential existence of pre-decisional, deliberative documents."
A White House spokeswoman said it would be “premature” to comment on a report that has not officially been presented to the president.
The report said the first phase would be the smallest, targeting sections covering 26 miles (42 km) near San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and in Texas's Rio Grande Valley.
The report assumes DHS would get funding from Congress by April or May, giving the department sufficient time to secure contractors and begin construction by September. Trump has said Congress should fund the wall upfront, but that Mexico will reimburse U.S. taxpayers. Mexico has said it will not pay.
Several U.S. congressional delegations are visiting the border this month to assess funding needs, according to several people familiar with the travel plans.
The report shows the U.S. government has begun seeking waivers to address environmental laws on building in some areas. It also shows the government has begun working with existing contractors and planning steel purchases for the project.
Trump told law enforcement officials on Wednesday, "The wall is getting designed right now."
The report accounted for the time and cost of acquiring private land, one reason for its steep price increase compared to estimates from Trump and members of Congress.
Bernstein Research, an investment research group that tracks material costs, has said that uncertainties around the project could drive its cost up to as much as $25 billion.
The second phase of construction proposed in the report would cover 151 miles (242 km) of border in and around the Rio Grande Valley; Laredo, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and Big Bend, Texas. The third phase would cover an unspecified 1,080 miles (1,728 km), essentially sealing off the entire U.S.-Mexico border.
On February 10 2017 19:37 Kickboxer wrote: The fetus becomes human when it develops a central nervous system.
This is about where the "soul" gets in, in my particular metaphysical interpretation before that I don't see the zygote as anything but a random clump of cells with a plan. Much like cancer.
It probably isn't a very convincing explanation but I'm sure doctors are able to provide one rooted in hard science.
At any rate, an early-stage embryo is NOT a "human being", especially when compared to actual already-born-and-struggling-about destitute kids to be saved so the entire "save the children" debate is based on bs.
for ensoulment, catholic theology insists it at birth, islam and judaism generally agree around 40 days in (some schools argue a little later).
honestly, we know a lot from the medical perspective, but with matters of life and death (which was the title of my rather tedious bioethics text) ethics and morality do have to inform a decision. like, we can say when an embryo/ fetus can experience pain, when it has defined limbs, when it can reacts to certain stimuli, but its hard to say when it's a person.
it's all too complicated, so i kind of wave my hands in the air and cede that 40 days is when a clump of cells become a person because its feels reasonable and smarter people have come to the conclusion. before then i don't think you really have to weigh an abortion as heavily, but then you gotta start thinking if you're past that.
EPT
before that I don't see the zygote as anything but a random clump of cells with a plan. Much like cancer.
