American Politics Impeachment: 2 fast? No, we're 2 furious

[Kowani]

Anyway, Trump's US Attorney pick in Georgia dismisses election fraud claims

[Thermodolia]

Just for the record no the current rate of global warming is not natural and it has long since been conclusively been proven to be caused by industrial civilization.

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race - the based 14 words

[Spirit of Hope]

Yeah they'll respect your views until they stab you in the neck for being a Jew lover lol. I don't think you actually have much experience in the world, which seems to be common for libertarians.

If they stab me, they should go to prison because by stabbing me, they violated my freedom to live (assuming I was murdered). Until they stab me, let them spout their views (outside of the workplace). I dislike the idea of 'thought crimes.'

But you are completely against a company being punished for knowingly serving a product that hurts people. Weird stance.

I mean I can agree with the stance, people shouldn't be thrown in jail for saying their opinions. I don't agree with the stance that people should be immune from the results of saying their opinions. Results like being fired because your job doesn't want to be associated with what you are saying.

[Thermodolia]

Anyway, Trump's US Attorney pick in Georgia dismisses election fraud claims

God I love my home state

[Adamede]

Use whatever words you want, but my point still stands.

Either way, drug use is a poor example since that was a bottom-up swell and not a top-down dictation.

How does that make any meaningful distinction?

We can even see that since, as the support for harsh drug sentences eroded, so did their policy. Arguably it was the worst example you could have picked since it's like, the only example of the US buckling to popular will.

It’s hardly the only. The legality of various forms of sexual relationships between consenting adults is another one.

And “buckling to public will” has nothing to do with my point.

[Kowani]

And it looks like Rudy will Not be getting paid after all

[Senkaku]

Becuase the government shouldn’t necessarily legislate ethics.

What law is not ultimately based on some normative assertion?

^

Just for the record no the current rate of global warming is not natural and it has long since been conclusively been proven to be caused by industrial civilization.

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race - the based 14 words

do not make me bash any ecofash

You're like the alt-right Facebook aunt version of Kowani.

Stop giving FR so much credit and unmerited response. lol

I genuinely have nothing else to do.

You're like the alt-right Facebook aunt version of Kowani.

...
bruh

Am I wrong? There were a LOT of article links in that post.

[Andsed]

Also all she wanted at first was for McDonald's to pay her medical bills (which were in the five digits cause 'Murika) but they refused, the hot coffee lawsuit was basically just a jury rightfully punishing McDonald's for being dicks.

If the USA had nationalized health care, this wouldn't have been a problem. Why does a major industrial power have the money to invade other countries and have the number one most expensive military BUT it can't afford basic healthcare for burns and broken bones?

Of course, Biden will likely support something awful like Obamacare instead of a reasonable plan.

Basic health care should be a right and not a privilege (one issue where I actually agree with some socialists). However, I don't think McDonald's should have had to pay for her injuries. They were not being unfair.

McDonald was serving coffee at temperature where it could give someone third degree burns. They were being extremely reckless and deserved that lawsuit.

Just for the record no the current rate of global warming is not natural and it has long since been conclusively been proven to be caused by industrial civilization.

It is so disheartening to see how many people believe in climate change misinformation that makes them think its not something we need to take action on now.

[Bombadil]

And it looks like Rudy will Not be getting paid after all

Gosh.. who could have seen that coming aside from all of us?

[Adamede]

What law is not ultimately based on some normative assertion?

^

Again, that’s not my fucking point dude.

I’m not saying that the governor shouldn’t legislate based on ethics, because yes captain obvious, that’s what all laws are based on. What I’m saying is that the government doesn’t need to make a law for every single ethical debate.

That simple enough for you?

[Valrifell]

Either way, drug use is a poor example since that was a bottom-up swell and not a top-down dictation.

How does that make any meaningful distinction?

We can even see that since, as the support for harsh drug sentences eroded, so did their policy. Arguably it was the worst example you could have picked since it's like, the only example of the US buckling to popular will.

It’s hardly the only. The legality of various forms of sexual relationships between consenting adults is another one.

And “buckling to public will” has nothing to do with my point.

The drug policy was a popular sweep, this means that it functionally makes no difference if the government legislated on it or not, since the effects on job security would have been identical until like the 90s.

It's an example of where libertarian ideology would have failed in an equal way to the state, because the people were super against it.

[Senkaku]

It’s hardly the only. The legality of various forms of sexual relationships between consenting adults is another one.

Yes, social norms changed, and the law changed as a result. I don't know how much more clearly you could illustrate Val and Huang's initial point. All laws are based on normative beliefs, which may be contested... which is what we have politics for.

[The Reformed American Republic]

If the USA had nationalized health care, this wouldn't have been a problem. Why does a major industrial power have the money to invade other countries and have the number one most expensive military BUT it can't afford basic healthcare for burns and broken bones?

Of course, Biden will likely support something awful like Obamacare instead of a reasonable plan.

Basic health care should be a right and not a privilege (one issue where I actually agree with some socialists). However, I don't think McDonald's should have had to pay for her injuries. They were not being unfair.

McDonald was serving coffee at temperature where it could give someone third degree burns. They were being extremely reckless and deserved that lawsuit.

Just for the record no the current rate of global warming is not natural and it has long since been conclusively been proven to be caused by industrial civilization.

It is so disheartening to see how many people believe in climate change misinformation that makes them think its not something we need to take action on now.

There was a trumpian whom I talked to online, and he acted like people who believed in climate science were all triggered "snowflakes."

[Adamede]

How does that make any meaningful distinction?

It’s hardly the only. The legality of various forms of sexual relationships between consenting adults is another one.

And “buckling to public will” has nothing to do with my point.

The drug policy was a popular sweep, this means that it functionally makes no difference if the government legislated on it or not, since the effects on job security would have been identical until like the 90s.

That doesn’t weaken my point at all. I’m not saying that society shouldn’t talk about it, I’m saying that the government shouldn’t concern itself without beyond say quality laws.

It's an example of where libertarian ideology would have failed in an equal way to the state, because the people were super against it.

Not even close to what I’m talking about dude.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

^

Again, that’s not my fucking point dude.

I’m not saying that the governor shouldn’t legislate based on ethics, because yes captain obvious, that’s what all laws are based on. What I’m saying is that the government doesn’t need to make a law for every single ethical debate.

That simple enough for you?

What's the bright line?

[Jerzylvania]

Just for the record no the current rate of global warming is not natural and it has long since been conclusively been proven to be caused by industrial civilization.

Corporate climate scientists knew in the 1950s that there was strong evidence for industrially induced climate change, but instead of actually fixing the problem took their headstart in noticing the problem to develop a killer PR campaign that spreads misinformation and sows doubt to the general public to this day.

Heck, even said PR tactics are well studied by philosophers of science, psychologists, and advertisers, because of how effective it was at causing uncertainty in the face of insurmountable evidence and a consensus among scientists.

To simplify... PR men are mostly con men. Trump himself has relied upon these PR tactics over the decades.

Listen kids, just say no to PR. It cooks the decision making part of your brain like an egg in a hot frying pan. Oh wait. That's just an old drug war PR ad.

*screams*

[Kexholm Karelia]

You understand that giving corporations the ability to fire people for shits is something that you, as a right-libertarian, are indirectly supporting?

They should have the legal right to fire people but ethically it is wrong. The government should set a good example and never fire people for their opinions outside of work (as long as they don't wear the work uniform or post from a government website).

My hope is that more people will agree to disagree and respect people's opinions even if they are controversial. People need to be less petty and we can have more harmony. The people that fired the employees behaved like mini tyrants. I bet they are the same people that criticized Xi Jinping or Kim Jong-Il or Stalin for 'human rights violations' and not allowing freedom of speech BUT they also behave like a tyrant when given the opportunity.

Wait so are you a tankie, fascist, alt right, or libertarian?

[Adamede]

It’s hardly the only. The legality of various forms of sexual relationships between consenting adults is another one.

Yes, social norms changed, and the law changed as a result. I don't know how much more clearly you could illustrate Val and Huang's initial point. All laws are based on normative beliefs, which may be contested... which is what we have politics for.

And ethics will change again. And that’s why there are some ethical debates that the go nearer shouldn’t concern itself with ultimately.

[Senkaku]

^

Again, that’s not my fucking point dude.

I’m not saying that the governor shouldn’t legislate based on ethics, because yes captain obvious, that’s what all laws are based on. What I’m saying is that the government doesn’t need to make a law for every single ethical debate.

No one is proposing the government "make a law for every single ethical debate." We were discussing FR's radical vision of right-wing libertarianism, in which he would like for the government to actually revoke quite a few laws that were created to resolve pressing social dilemmas, based on our normative judgements of how to solve them.

That simple enough for you?

I'm really not sure what you came here to say, you don't seem to have known what people were talking about when you entered the conversation.

[Adamede]

Again, that’s not my fucking point dude.

I’m not saying that the governor shouldn’t legislate based on ethics, because yes captain obvious, that’s what all laws are based on. What I’m saying is that the government doesn’t need to make a law for every single ethical debate.

That simple enough for you?

What's the bright line?

Don’t see what you’re referring too but if from my comments it’s probably a typo.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

What's the bright line?

Don’t see what you’re referring too but if from my comments it’s probably a typo.

The bright line between ethical debates the government should and should not involve itself in.

[Senkaku]

Yes, social norms changed, and the law changed as a result. I don't know how much more clearly you could illustrate Val and Huang's initial point. All laws are based on normative beliefs, which may be contested... which is what we have politics for.

And ethics will change again. And that’s why there are some ethical debates that the government shouldn’t concern itself with ultimately.

..."anything that the public may someday change its mind about should not be legislated on" seems like a rather sweeping approach, to me.

[Myrensis]

Anyway, Trump's US Attorney pick in Georgia dismisses election fraud claims

Man, the number of deep state radical traitors Trump personally appointed is truly impressive.

I wonder if the cult has ever considered whether...Trump himself is part of the conspiracy?

[Adamede]

Don’t see what you’re referring too but if from my comments it’s probably a typo.

The bright line between ethical debates the government should and should not involve itself in.

Yah I don’t know where that comes from and I’m not about to trawl through my comments at this time of night.

However that government doesn’t need to legislate itself a position for ethical debate in society.

[Kowani]

Trump discussed resignation, didn't go through with it because he doesn't trust Pence to pardon him