Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Rushy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 226  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Political compass
« on: June 30, 2022, 12:31:47 AM »

I am a radical centrist

T R U M P 2 0 2 4

It's not an election. We're no longer asking.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 24, 2022, 05:08:39 PM »
Politicians saying crazy and outrageous things is a non-issue! If their views aren't popular, then they'll lose, and if their views are popular, then it's democracy in action!

This but unironically. If a 'crazy' politician sees a wide base of support, then you don't just have a 'crazy' politician, you have a 'crazy' population.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 24, 2022, 02:48:38 PM »
No more baby murder for you!

Regardless of what you think of the decision to reverse Roe v. Wade, legislatures saw this coming from miles away. If you want abortion to be a properly protected act, then you need to pass a law (state or federal) that treats it as such. Relying on a historically flimsy and controversial court case to legislate from the bench is a mistake.

If you don't like what's going on, then you should of course blame your local government and federal representatives for allowing it to happen.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 17, 2022, 02:09:31 PM »
The legal system isn’t corrupt because it disagrees with you.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

There are plenty of good arguements for the legality of abortion and simply ascribing to those views doesn’t make them morally bankrupt.

What is and isn't "morally bankrupt" is very much up to debate. I'm sure there's more than one thing you think is morally bankrupt in your government and mine. I don't think the argument "they don't think it be like it is, but it do" would sway you. Why expect it to sway me?

We allow humans to shoot other humans legally in certain cases, but all abortions are murder? It’s a shallow analysis that ignores the multitude of circumstances under which an abortion may be sought out. The question is complicated and unfortunately is being decided by people whose stock in trade is creating polarizing viewpoints for people to ascribe to.

I don't think it's shallow at all. It's a completely valid moral stance (just the same as the one where someone might think abortion is allowable in all cases). What intrigues me the most is when people start making these odd exceptions or reduction attempts for abortion. For example, people who think abortion is bad unless it was rape or incest. It's as if they've accepted abortion as wrong and/or evil, but a 'necessary' evil.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 17, 2022, 01:21:28 PM »
Well sure, your moral opinion of what constitutes murder may be different from the legal definition. But the latter is a definition.

An opinion that, in my opinion, isn't relevant to my original post.

Cool. Well good luck with that next time you're in court.
I'm sure your opinion about what the laws should be will carry a lot of weight with the judge.

And that's not really relevant either. I'm not sure why everyone immediately brought this up. When I say "she belongs in jail", it's not very interesting to say "yes but the currently corrupt legal system says she'll never be in jail so you're wrong haha!"

Imagine, again, if I were in a Middle Eastern nation saying "this person shouldn't be stoned" and someone like you says "whatever, the current legal system says they should be so you're wrong!" Very salient point. Bravo.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 16, 2022, 11:36:08 PM »
In the legal sense, yes.

Fortunately my morality is not so dependent on the local legal system as yours.

You can have an opinion about what the laws should be, sure. But what the laws are is not a matter of opinion.

That's simply incorrect. The act of abiding by a legal system itself is a matter of opinion. A legal system is only powerful in a situation in which the populace's personal opinion of morality closely matches that of the legal system. An additional factor is how the people themselves react to the legal system's presence. A tyranny prefers individuals who defer their opinion to the system itself (and now refer to that system as 'fact') while a more free system does not necessitate such a harsher philosophy.

*wonders when they'll realize Rushy is using the factual definition, not legal*

The dictionary definition is:

Quote from:
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

As I've attempted to explain, what one does and doesn't consider 'lawful' is simply a personal opinion.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 16, 2022, 03:34:28 PM »
Perhaps this has been stated or addressed.  Not going to read 14 pages of dialogue to catch up.

This issue with your assertion is that, in the US, a majority of the population feels abortion should be legal.  Hence, a majority feel it is not murder.  That is not an overwhelming majority, but significantly more than 51/49.  So, is it murder or isn't it?  Just because Rushy thinks so doesn't make it so.  It's a subjective opinion.  This leads to the fact that it will be the government that ultimately decides whether it is or not.

The point is that you can't say objectively that abortion is or isn't murder merely because the government may or may not say it is. It's like saying pushing a gay man off a roof in Afghanistan isn't murder because the government in that location happens to think that is the case.

When I say "abortion is murder" bringing up "the government doesn't think it is" isn't relevant when the basis for the discourse is morality and not the legal system's opinion on the matter at hand.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 16, 2022, 03:08:34 PM »
It's not a problem at all, it's just reality.
I'm talking about the legal definition of murder. You said that "she should be in jail", so you are too.
That's a definition, defined by the State. Because that's how society works.
You don't get to decide what is legal, you vote for people who do that and if they're not making laws you like you can vote for different people.
So you might think that abortion should be considered murder if you like, but saying it "is" is simply incorrect by the current definition.

Your idea of who gets to define murder is simply wrong.

Let's say, for example, that suddenly I am the most powerful person on the planet (woe to many, I know). In this magical universe where I am in charge, I am now effectively the government, able to impose my will on anyone anywhere at any time. Therefore, I define the legal system. In this universe, is my opinion of what constitutes murder now the "objectively correct" definition of murder to you? If the answer is yes, then why bother pretending to have any opinions at all? You don't happen to the universe, the universe happens to you. Your life and its opinions are based entirely of whatever the most powerful force in your vicinity happens to be. Your concept of what is and isn't murder entirely depends on mine in that universe.

Instead, if you answer "no", (which would be mine, should the positions reverse), then obviously the government's opinion of what is or isn't murder is irrelevant. I do not think just because some large group can inflict violence on me that suddenly their definition of murder outweighs my own.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 16, 2022, 01:12:01 PM »
This is not about what to think or a matter of opinion. The States define laws - including what is an isn't murder.

The idea that States [sic] define what murder is would be your opinion.

A rabid vegetarian saying "Meat is Murder" doesn't make them correct, as defined by law.

A vegetarian saying "Meat is Murder" is correct in the sense that what murder is/isn't is a matter of personal opinion. It has nothing to do with armed gangs running around violently enforcing their opinions on the local population. Telling me that there's a Big Bad out there whose opinion is more important than mine simply because they'll imprison me or kill me is irrelevant. My opinion supersedes theirs by matter of being my opinion.

That you so gladly let someone else dictate to you what is and isn't murder is your problem, not mine.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 16, 2022, 12:57:48 PM »
There are no States where abortion is murder, so technically incorrect.

I don't see the relevance. Maybe you let States [sic] decide what and how to think for you, but I don't.

She later decided abortion is murder. Maybe you thought she was someone else? Or maybe you typed the wrong turn of phrase?

She is a murderer and belongs in prison with the rest of them. I don't care whether or not the woman acknowledges it was murder. Prison already has plenty of murderers who "dindu nuffin", adding one that knows what they did is no big deal to me (but is to you, apparently).

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 15, 2022, 10:40:08 PM »

If this is true, I wonder if Lauren will be contrite or pivot to whinging about MSM? This is being released by the same PAC that released info on Madison Cawthorn so it’s not something I will dismiss out of hand but I’m not getting out my pitchfork.

She murdered babies and should be in jail, not in Congress.

I know nothing about this woman but if she did this in the distant past (10 years+) and changed her stance, thats fine.  I don't agree but we shouldn't shame people for changing their minds.

The other stuff?  Yeah, totally a target for criticism.

Murdering people and then later deciding "actually murder is not so bad" should absolutely still be criticized. A reformed murderer is still a dangerous felon.

Technology & Information / Re: Ask Rushy about Bitcoins.
« on: June 15, 2022, 01:36:02 PM »
Bitcoin CRASHES to only $21,335 each!

In order to match the previous power of Bitcoin crashes (which it obviously recovered from). The price should be approximately 90% of the all-time-high (which is about $68k). I suspect Bitcoin will go back down to about $10k. This is unthinkable for the people who bought in within the past year or so, but they'll get over it. They'll sell and kick themselves when it's at $1 million each by 2030.

By that logic, wouldn't it also work if the US said "We'll nuke you unless you stop"?

The US has a lot more to lose than Russia. It's like threatening the local homeless man you'll knock down his tent versus him threatening to topple your skyscrapers. The risk vs. reward is completely different. Russia is more willing to risk getting nuked to gain some territory than we are to protect it (which is why we aren't knocking down Putin's door with SEAL team six).

So your plan would be let anyone with a nuke take over as much territory as they want and hope that territory doesn't include where you happen to live?

Yes, because anything else involves inviting nuclear warfare. It's also why the US' supposed devotion to protecting Taiwan is meaningless and when China finally decides to take Taiwan by force, they'll eventually get it.

Also, non nuclear?  Wouldn't the same logic hold up if Putin attacks a nuclear power?  By this logic shouldn't the US surrender if Russia threatens to nuke us?

No, the same logic does not apply to a nuclear power. A nuclear power cannot invade another nuclear power. Again, this has been the basis for all geopolitics since the late 40's.

The fact that he has never done that is a great indicator that he hasn't completely lost his sanity just yet.
That's one possible explanation. I'm not convinced it's correct. Keep in mind that it wouldn't be Putin, personally, launching the nukes, and his generals have previously put the brakes on significantly smaller infractions than annihilating the world. Their loyalty is to their own comfort, not to Putin, and not to Russia.

Chances are that the moment he declares a nuclear strike, he gets shot in the head by a high-ranking official. He's done his fair share of shooting people in the head, so he likely realises that.

If we start reaching for assumptions that involve Putin behaving irrationally (though he has not seemed to have done so yet) then also reaching for the assumption that his colleagues are just as irrational as he is would be easy. We also don't know where the generals surrounding Putin have their loyalties. "To their own comfort" is merely an opinion and one that is not evident.

In each of those times we successfully avoided nuclear war.
I dunno, Putin is still saying he'll totally start a nuclear war. Postponing it while giving him time to grow stronger (regardless of whether he squandered it) doesn't seem to have worked out so far.

There is no surviving a nuclear war, how strong (or weak) he grows is irrelevant when just 10% of Russia's nuclear arsenal could render the planet uninhabitable. Letting him take chunks out of his neighbors is a very easy price to pay for not dying in WWIII. He knows this, which is why it's his strategy to just do a bit at a time. If he were truly an unstable madman, he'd be invading all of his neighbors simultaneously while egging NATO. The fact that he has never done that is a great indicator that he hasn't completely lost his sanity just yet.

Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think that giving up chunks of territory to anyone threatening nuclear war is a great foreign policy.

Why? At what point do you say "I'm willing to gamble the entire planet's habitability on this piece of land"? A lot of these arguments sound more like a desire to not "let Putin win" or some other egotistical gibberish versus the actual stakes at hand here. I would let Putin take all of non-nuclear Europe before I gamble a single American getting wiped by a Russian nuke. If Russia nukes us, we have to nuke them back, then the entire planet loses. Yes, the whole planet. A worldwide extinction event that humanity may not survive (and if it does, we lose several thousand years of civilizational progress over the course of a few days).

It doesn't make sense to risk nuclear war over some muddy terrain in Eastern Europe. Quite literally anything we do to Russia ratchets up the chance they end the world. It would be the irrational choice, yes, but massive wars have started over irrational choices that were easily avoided.

I think its a mistake to assume that there's some kind of rulebook that Putin is referring to if he's deciding if he's okay with a particular weapon or not.  He's not a statesman.  He's a thug.  The only thing these people understand is power.  Frankly I think it's a mistake not to give Ukraine even more advanced weapons asap.

Huh? No one mentioned a rulebook. What thread are you reading?

Also kicking an invading army out of the country is hardly backing them into a corner. 

I'm referring to their economic sanctions, not anything to do with Ukraine itself.

Russia is nowhere near collapse.  A nation like Russia can take an enormous amount of punishment before it collapses.  In ww2 things were so bad they had to run public service announcements telling starving peasants not to cannibalize their children.  They still held up.

Defaulting on their international debt proves otherwise. The last time the Russians had economic problems, the USSR dissolved and we ended up with some very nasty nuclear weapons talks to avoid unstable governments having access to nuclear weapons and ensure the continuation of the central Russian government. I'd rather avoid that again (and you should too!).

We've tried appeasing Putin many times.  Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Ukraine again, Ukraine for a third time.  I suppose if we appease him this one last time he might stop.  It has to work eventually right?

In each of those times we successfully avoided nuclear war. Avoiding nuclear war has been the entire goal of all geopolitics since the US dropped two bombs on Japan.

The alternative seems to be appeasing Russia while it's led by an insane man - I would not expect for him to act rationally either. You could argue that non-involvement is an option, but that's largely the same as letting Russia grow bolder.

We have plenty of other weapons to lob into Ukraine that don't involve long range strike capability that Ukraine frankly doesn't need nor do they have the intelligence capacity to use on their own. What we're doing is giving a country weapons and intelligence to the point that we're already far too involved. There's a difference between increasing resistance to the Russian invasion versus fighting an ever more direct war with Russia itself.

We're walking a fine line where one side is a literal apocalypse and the other is letting one corrupt shithole heavily damage another. It's not fair to the Ukrainian people, but it's also not fair to the rest of the planet to antagonize an increasingly unstable nuclear nation. Appeasement isn't a naughty word we should never engage in. This isn't WWII where it's just some Nazis, planes and tanks, it's a possible nuclear exchange scenario where we back Russia into a corner so far that their government destabilizes. Putin may not be the most stable man around, but all it takes is one enraged general who thinks Putin is a coward who won't "fight for the Russian people" or whatever to pop shit off in such a way that we can't put the genie back in the bottle.

It really wouldn't be in their best interest to attack Russia itself as from the occasional ammo or fuel depot.  I'm pretty sure Ukraine knows that.

Also the triple 7's we've been giving them have enough range to attack cities in Russia from Kharkiv so it doesn't add much risk to Russian territory.

Expecting a country being torn apart to act rationally is a mistake. Further, adding fuel to an already raging fire simply because it hasn't gotten out of hand yet is not a fantastic idea.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 29, 2022, 12:30:31 AM »
What about after the kids move out?

Evidence of contribution is fine for the continuation of the marriage as a reward.

Or the woman goes through metapause and is unable to have kids?  Should the marriage be null and void in a legal sense?

Yes, if she already doesn't have any children.

You think the Government should treat the populace as livestock, then?

Already does. All of them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 226  Next >