|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 August 09 2017 12:41 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +The first step of rebuilding the nation, Jeffress said, was the building of a wall around Jerusalem to protect its citizens. “You see, God is not against building walls,” Jeffress said in his sermon at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington.
Jeffress is no stranger to controversy. He has said in the past that former president Barack Obama paved the way for the antichrist and drew wide attention for calling Mormonism a cult during the 2012 Republican primaries. Jeffress knows his comments on North Korea could be considered controversial, even among fellow evangelicals.
Jesus. Like, what religion is this? That literally sounds like a scumbag scamming bullshitter televangelist. Sidenote, God certainly is against building walls. Like, it's literally goes against everything the church actually stands for. Show nested quote +It's only one step short of saying Trump has the divine right to rule as a king.
Emperor. And i wouldn't put it behind that guy judging by the bullshit that comes from him. Does the Pope tweet? Twitter war between retarded televangelist and the Pope would be great.
can we have him debate the pope on TV please?
Also I wonder how all the Roman Catholic members of Congress feel about this.
apparently he's a nice guy.
|
I hereby submit a proposition. Anything linked, must contain an opposing comment. It's too easy to find material that makes trump and co look like morons. So we must, from now on, submit 2 links. 1 in favor and 1 opposed.
|
On August 09 2017 13:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hereby submit a proposition. Anything linked, must contain an opposing comment. It's too easy to find material that makes trump and co look like morons. So we must, from now on, submit 2 links. 1 in favor and 1 opposed.
An opposing comment? On some pastors opinion? At the risk of stepping on zlefin's toes, you must be trolling.
|
|
|
We have zeflins excuse to backseat moderate of a thread in website feedback for those comments. I'd be happy with a standard of relevance for tweets and sources but theres no reason for us to get all jurno "equal time equal space" on the thread.
|
On August 09 2017 13:13 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 12:41 m4ini wrote:The first step of rebuilding the nation, Jeffress said, was the building of a wall around Jerusalem to protect its citizens. “You see, God is not against building walls,” Jeffress said in his sermon at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington.
Jeffress is no stranger to controversy. He has said in the past that former president Barack Obama paved the way for the antichrist and drew wide attention for calling Mormonism a cult during the 2012 Republican primaries. Jeffress knows his comments on North Korea could be considered controversial, even among fellow evangelicals.
Jesus. Like, what religion is this? That literally sounds like a scumbag scamming bullshitter televangelist. Sidenote, God certainly is against building walls. Like, it's literally goes against everything the church actually stands for. It's only one step short of saying Trump has the divine right to rule as a king.
Emperor. And i wouldn't put it behind that guy judging by the bullshit that comes from him. Does the Pope tweet? Twitter war between retarded televangelist and the Pope would be great. can we have him debate the pope on TV please? Also I wonder how all the Roman Catholic members of Congress feel about this. apparently he's a nice guy. https://twitter.com/KirstenPowers/status/894997438754312192
That's not an absurd stance for some Protestants. The Lutheran denomination I grew up in thinks the papacy is the Anti Christ.
Sure you might be a Christian, but you're not the right kind of Christian. Apparently things were much more fractured and cut throat before Roe V Wade. Different sects of Christianity were always at odds but were united under the umbrella of Pro-Life when given a common enemy. That's when the religious right really became a thing.
My mom isn't a fan of Catholics at all! lol
|
On August 09 2017 14:01 Sermokala wrote:
We have zeflins excuse to backseat moderate of a thread in website feedback for those comments. I'd be happy with a standard of relevance for tweets and sources but theres no reason for us to get all jurno "equal time equal space" on the thread.
I'd like to see some standard of relevance for sure. The good news is the tweet "This just in: Trump will really do it to spite the world!" just got a warning two pages back. And the regulars sift through the muck to keep a subject going, like the dozen-ish on how contract arbitration is only for corporate shills or it's actually a good thing.
|
United States43666 Posts
On August 09 2017 14:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 14:01 Sermokala wrote:
We have zeflins excuse to backseat moderate of a thread in website feedback for those comments. I'd be happy with a standard of relevance for tweets and sources but theres no reason for us to get all jurno "equal time equal space" on the thread. I'd like to see some standard of relevance for sure. The good news is the tweet "This just in: Trump will really do it to spite the world!" just got a warning two pages back. And the regulars sift through the muck to keep a subject going, like the dozen-ish on how contract arbitration is only for corporate shills or it's actually a good thing.
At the risk of dragging us back to that, surely you can tell the difference between arbitration being a good option and mandatory arbitration being a good thing to have in a contract. At the risk of treating you like a child, you don't have to hate vanilla ice cream to oppose the banning of all other food options in favour of vanilla ice cream. Whether or not vanilla ice cream is good isn't really important to whether or not the ban is good. The two sides were not "arbitration is good" and "arbitration is for corporate shills", they were "arbitration is good" and "for fucks sake xDaunt nobody is disputing that".
|
I don't think that I'd need all of the fingers on one hand to count the number of participating posters who understood the arbitration issue.
|
The whole conversation I couldn't get out of my head how arbitration is used in Pro sports and is in their contracts that teams can have forced arbitration for players in some situations. It works in those situations beacuse the teams get to protect the implied investment into the players they developed and the players get a contract for fair market value for their services.
I don't think that forced arbitration is necessarily a bad thing and logically could be a great thing for people. The courts in america are underfunded and backlogged to a degree where I wouldn't see stressing that system more would be a good thing. I'd believe that the real issue would go back to deciding what exactly a corporation is and what rights they should have or shouldn't have.
|
On August 09 2017 14:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 14:18 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2017 14:01 Sermokala wrote:
We have zeflins excuse to backseat moderate of a thread in website feedback for those comments. I'd be happy with a standard of relevance for tweets and sources but theres no reason for us to get all jurno "equal time equal space" on the thread. I'd like to see some standard of relevance for sure. The good news is the tweet "This just in: Trump will really do it to spite the world!" just got a warning two pages back. And the regulars sift through the muck to keep a subject going, like the dozen-ish on how contract arbitration is only for corporate shills or it's actually a good thing. At the risk of dragging us back to that, surely you can tell the difference between arbitration being a good option and mandatory arbitration being a good thing to have in a contract. At the risk of treating you like a child, you don't have to hate vanilla ice cream to oppose the banning of all other food options in favour of vanilla ice cream. Whether or not vanilla ice cream is good isn't really important to whether or not the ban is good.
I don't think it's worth reopening that topic; it didn't seem you actually grasped nuanced positions on the specific legislation and import. I want to just use it as an example of seeing past the background tweet-noise to a subject.
After your post edit: Yeah, it's a fools errand if that's your takeaway.
|
On August 09 2017 14:38 xDaunt wrote:
I don't think that I'd need all of the fingers on one hand to count the number of participating posters who understood the arbitration issue.
Good thing we have lawyers to understand these things for us!
|
On August 09 2017 14:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 14:27 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2017 14:18 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2017 14:01 Sermokala wrote:
We have zeflins excuse to backseat moderate of a thread in website feedback for those comments. I'd be happy with a standard of relevance for tweets and sources but theres no reason for us to get all jurno "equal time equal space" on the thread. I'd like to see some standard of relevance for sure. The good news is the tweet "This just in: Trump will really do it to spite the world!" just got a warning two pages back. And the regulars sift through the muck to keep a subject going, like the dozen-ish on how contract arbitration is only for corporate shills or it's actually a good thing. At the risk of dragging us back to that, surely you can tell the difference between arbitration being a good option and mandatory arbitration being a good thing to have in a contract. At the risk of treating you like a child, you don't have to hate vanilla ice cream to oppose the banning of all other food options in favour of vanilla ice cream. Whether or not vanilla ice cream is good isn't really important to whether or not the ban is good. I don't think it's worth reopening that topic; it didn't seem you actually grasped nuanced positions on the specific legislation and import. I want to just use it as an example of seeing past the background tweet-noise to a subject. After your post edit: Yeah, it's a fools errand if that's your takeaway.
There are numerous areas where posters who reflexively disagree with me can (and arguably should) challenge me, but one would think that posters would have learned by now that legal stuff isn't one of those areas.
|
United States43666 Posts
On August 09 2017 14:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 14:40 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2017 14:27 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2017 14:18 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2017 14:01 Sermokala wrote:
We have zeflins excuse to backseat moderate of a thread in website feedback for those comments. I'd be happy with a standard of relevance for tweets and sources but theres no reason for us to get all jurno "equal time equal space" on the thread. I'd like to see some standard of relevance for sure. The good news is the tweet "This just in: Trump will really do it to spite the world!" just got a warning two pages back. And the regulars sift through the muck to keep a subject going, like the dozen-ish on how contract arbitration is only for corporate shills or it's actually a good thing. At the risk of dragging us back to that, surely you can tell the difference between arbitration being a good option and mandatory arbitration being a good thing to have in a contract. At the risk of treating you like a child, you don't have to hate vanilla ice cream to oppose the banning of all other food options in favour of vanilla ice cream. Whether or not vanilla ice cream is good isn't really important to whether or not the ban is good. I don't think it's worth reopening that topic; it didn't seem you actually grasped nuanced positions on the specific legislation and import. I want to just use it as an example of seeing past the background tweet-noise to a subject. After your post edit: Yeah, it's a fools errand if that's your takeaway. There are numerous areas where posters who reflexively disagree with me can (and arguably should) challenge me, but one would think that posters would have learned by now that legal stuff isn't one of those areas.
As far as I can tell your legal expertise seems to consist mostly of an absolute insistence upon only answering the questions you wished people had asked, regardless of what is actually being discussed, and then blaming the questions for being wrong when called out on it. You can no more insist "I am a lawyer, therefore you should respect me" than Trump can insist "I am the President, therefore you should respect me". Sure, if I knew absolutely nothing else about an individual I'd probably expect a lawyer to be intelligent and a president to be even more so. But you don't have the benefit of the doubt here xDaunt. Your posts are to my opinion of your intelligence what Trump's tweets are to my opinion of his. You only get the benefit of the doubt when there is doubt, I have no doubts in my assessment of you.
|
I'm pretty sure I understood what you were saying in the arbitration argument but I don't think you solidly answered my point (at least in a way that doesn't also seemingly make your point moot and bring us back around to the same question), and you were having trouble answering too many of the same questions.
Maybe your point was: "eh it's not that big a deal."
But I guess you don't watch Better Call Saul.
|
On August 09 2017 14:59 IgnE wrote:
I'm pretty sure I understood what you were saying in the arbitration argument but I don't think you solidly answered my point (at least in a way that doesn't also seemingly make your point moot and bring us back around to the same question), and you were having trouble answering too many of the same questions.
I'm not sure what you think was deficient about my answers. I answered both of your questions directly: 1) Yes, corporate defendants game the system however they can with whatever tools that they can, and 2) Yes, legislatures can change the rules for arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. Regardless, you were at least asking the right questions. The problems with the questions being asked by most everyone else is that they were 1) tethered to a poor understanding of what arbitration is, and/or 2) failed to properly account for the differences between how arbitration affects process and remedies. It's sometimes hard to give a direct answer to a bad question.
Maybe your point was: "eh it's not that big a deal."
Yeah, that was the point, which I made in the first post and reiterated multiple times in later posts. The problem, as always, is that I tend to get asked a lot of questions (many of which are just dumb) that shit up the thread and result in the obfuscation of the original point. Here, I said "this isn't a big deal and here's why," and most of the responses that I got were some variation of "this shit is unfair! consumers should have a choice!", which isn't so much a coherent argument in response to what I said as it is an emotional outburst.
|
I do feel that the discussion at hand about forced arbitration was kind of needlessly obfuscated - but I did get my questions about it answered to my satisfaction, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
Ok so given that legislatures can change the rules and that those rules do alter power dynamics between individuals and corporations then you can see that some people might not be particularly pleased with the Trump change to the rules, even on principle, no matter whether you think arbitration is a big deal or not.
|
On August 09 2017 15:27 IgnE wrote:
Ok so given that legislatures can change the rules and that those rules do alter power dynamics between individuals and corporations then you can see that some people might not be particularly pleased with the Trump change to the rules, even on principle, no matter whether you think arbitration is a big deal or not.
Yes, I can see why people might be displeased "on principle," but shouldn't we aspire to make decisions based upon factual reality rather than emotion? All I did was make a very fact-based argument for why the change was not a big deal, and why the headline to which I was responding was misleading.
|
On August 09 2017 13:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 13:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hereby submit a proposition. Anything linked, must contain an opposing comment. It's too easy to find material that makes trump and co look like morons. So we must, from now on, submit 2 links. 1 in favor and 1 opposed. An opposing comment? On some pastors opinion? At the risk of stepping on zlefin's toes, you must be trolling.
Hey, it would take less time and be less potentially deleterious than an executive order mandating two regulations that affect at least X people or businesses must be repealed for every 1 regulation added that affects X people or businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
