jakee
-
Content
24,932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74 -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by jakee
-
So you shouldn’t kill the patient because he’d otherwise have been fine? The guy you’re happy to murder on the train tracks would otherwise have been fine too. In your first post you said that 5 def vs one dead was a simple choice. What changed?
-
That's ok, I wasn't asking you. But Turtlespeed chose, entirely of his own accord, to bring his relationship with homosexuals into the public conversation. It's fair game.
-
Nothing. Now you go. Seriously, when you have to pretend you're so clueless about American politics that you don't know they always hand out pens, even after it was specifically pointed out to you several times, just so you can insult Pelosi in a reply - you have to see that the only person who looks bad in that is you, right? It's also clear that you're not taking the thread seriously, since you're obviously just trying to distract from the fact that you have no answers to the important questions. Why should Democrats not bother impeaching Trump just because the Senate is Republican? Do you believe there should be effectively no mechanism whatsoever in the legal or political system for holding a President accountable for crimes and misdeeds?
-
Which is a hiariously biased view. Come on man, if you're genuinely trying to move past using partisan judgements on every situation you've gotta see that you can do better than this.
-
Doctors aren't expected to make moral decisions but random people are? Kinda selling the medical profession short, eh?
-
What's the difference? You've decided the poor guy on the side track can be sacrificed simply for going to work on the railway (or whatever reason he's there). Let's not pussyfoot around it - in either situation you are intentionally murdering one person to save five. Why is the utilitarian ethics valid in one setting but not the other?
-
Good to see you agree with Billvon that Brent has a problem with gay people. Now why do you have a problem with gay people?
-
Correct, Billvon just used an allegory to uncover the hidden side of your stated position. Well done for recognising it. Have a cookie.
-
I ask again, what do you have to gain by pretending to be so stupid? The precedent is, this is the exact same thing that happens any time that government documents of historical significance are signed, and it is the same thing that happened the last time a President was impeached. Although on that occasion they had to be taken back because the Republican party didn't know how to spell the name of the country. What indication is there that Pelosi isn't taking the high road?
-
You know what's not a rhetorical question - why do you disagree with the gay lifestyle?
-
Obviously not, it's clearly both worse and a uniquely Trumpian thing to do, whereas your one example of Pelosi is simply her following standard practice and established precedent. Which is why it is utterly bizarre that you have decided that one thing she did makes her just as bad as Trump, for whom we have example after example after example of crassness and lack of decorum - not to mention criminality. Which (call me crazy) I tend to think of as more important than the use of too many pens.
-
This is not a jury trial. Trump’s position is that he is immune from any action from the civil or criminal judicial system while President. He doesn’t get to moan that there’s no due process in impeachment. If he wants constitutional due process and impartial juries then he can agree to subject himself to the judicial system. Simple. But again, it’s not the Democrats fault that the constitution is fucked. They shouldn’t have to sit back and simply accept criminal misdeeds from the President simply because we know that the defense are in charge of the trial. That is simply an insane expectation.
-
It’s standard practice for any important documents. The Rs did the same thing with Bill. By the way, nice to see you’re taking the subject of your own thread so seriously. Way to stay on topic.
-
From the articles it sounds like the bike was following a car who changed lanes at the last minute to avoid the stationary vehicle.
-
What does that mean? Why? What has she done?
-
Indeed. Added to which there are vanishingly few real world situations in which the outcomes are so definite, so cut and dried. Everyone who so far has given an ‘I’d definitely do this’ answer has to consider that they may be plagued with the guilt and doubt of ‘I killed this guy but did I actually save the others?’ for the rest of their lives. That uncertainty and situational evaluation is also why the trolley problem is such a big thing for AI, AFAIK. What happens if you give a self driving car a definite set of rules in an uncertain world?
-
Nope, especially not the Republican leaders who have said they will conduct the entire trial in concert with the defence team of the person they are trying. Im surprised the thread wasn’t asking whether they should recuse themselves, but whatever. Because there needs to be some way of holding political leadership to account. Even if the system you currently have is godawful, how do you demonstrate that and maybe provoke change except by going through the system and proving that it is ludicrously unfit for purpose? Already this process with Trump has had judicial courts re-evaluating the assumed immunity of a sitting president. And it’s definitely not about creating a black mark. Trump has created his own black mark by doing illegal things. Why should he both get away with it and get away with it not being officially recorded?
-
That’s not another angle, that’s the same angle using slightly different words. I understand your point. Its still just a god of the gaps approach. Just because we don’t fully understand how the brain generates consciousness yet doesn’t mean that free will must be metaphysical. Therefore, premising all your arguments of what atheists should say based on the assumption is begging the question.
-
Uh, right. ”Breaking News: Senate not impartial!!”
-
Yes. Why do you disagree with the lifestyle of gay people?
-
I haven’t seen anyone accusing you of hating gay people. You’re probably projecting, since one of your favourite tactics is accusing anyone who disagrees with or dislikes Trump of hating him. But that doesn’t mean that everyone else is doing the same thing to you.
-
But seriously though, what's your problem with them?
-
No worries. Now what is it with you and gay people?
-
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
jakee replied to rushmc's topic in Speakers Corner
Don't feel too bad. It's actually 'ergo propter hoc' -
Kinda - but also that the person experiencing the perceived consciousness is actually a biological robot that is acting automatically on predetermined responses to stimuli. the problem is that the rest of the argument relies on the assumption that this is both true and accepted by the other party, which is why it’s reached an impasse.
