Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

User-Operated Forums
  • Content Count

    6048
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    117

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. My mistake, but the people of DC still have no Senator to represent them.
  2. Because the people of DC are not represented in the Senate and they are not allowed to vote in the presidential election. The people of San Francisco are already represented in the Senate and they are allowed to vote for president.
  3. You apparently linked it as a response to me, but it doesn't address the things that I said. It wasn't a very interesting article and it didn't make a connection to what I posted.
  4. That's why I mentioned the abusive father comparison. They probably truly believe their behavior is an act of adoration for the country, but their actions amount to hatred for most people looking from the outside. It's not just a comparison, but a version of the same mentality as abusive people. It's hard to point out, because most people see evil as an evasion of truth, or deliberately calling something good which you call evil. This is a case of evil where people are deliberately calling something good which you also call good, but their conception of good is distorted and twisted yet don't
  5. Is he the legitimate president? You'll appreciate this:
  6. This makes sense. Doing away with the filibuster is not inherently more beneficial to Democrats or Republicans. The filibuster is essentially abuse of loopholes in Senate rules. It isn't intended by the Constitution or protected by the Constitution. It should be eliminated. Sounds good about DC, the people who live there are citizens and deserve to vote. Puerto Rico isn't a big deal, at least at if the requirements for statehood are sensible. That sounds good. You didn't even try to specify "illegal immigration", unless you mean something else by "migration"? Increased immigr
  7. It's not the claim of unfair treatment, it's the claim that justice was not done after it had been through the court system, and then to give up on fighting it in the system, and then to proceed to "stop the steal" at the Capitol. You might not see it, but that's the problem. You've been fooled, and continue to be fooled. It would be nice if that was the case. But this can only work if you argue that the judges are corrupt, the Senators are corrupt, the deep state is all over, the governors are corrupt, the post office can't function, the legal remedies are not proper, and you can't a
  8. I will explain it. Generally, at least if you think the justice system at its fundamentals is still proper and legitimate (even if flawed in many ways), or will get you something that you want (whether it's justice or some pragmatic goal), then there is no reason to stop fighting through means of the judicial system. You might give up the legal fight if you 1) run out of money, 2) assent to the judicial decision completely even if you disagree, 3) never believed in your cause so you just used it as a way to get people to give you money, 4) an alternative legal or legal strategy would provide m
  9. Maybe he does hold America as his top value, and if so, he's doing it in a way that expresses hatred to America at the same time. It's like I was saying about Tad when he said that he thinks people should have symbolically taken a shit on America. It's a very strange and twisted way to love something, in the same way that an abusive father loves his children. You can say that the father treats his children in a way that he hates them, but he claims he is doing it because he loves them. He fails to protect the Senate when it is under attack (other people had to do it), giving an ambiguous respo
  10. I didn't notice this, but I just realized that the thought pattern here is "we should literally take a shit on America". Nothing symbolically says "I hate America" more than spewing sewage and fecal matter all over the Capitol. Once you adopt that attitude, consistency doesn't matter anymore, just "owning the libs" even if it also means unironically owning yourself.
  11. I didn't, but I don't even know what it was a response to in Harrison's post. You must've missed the last sentence. I said they were both wrong for different reasons. Aren't we missing something crucial here, namely that the majority of rioters were not carrying any particular kind of metaphorical or real flag? I struggle to see any ideological motivation behind any riots in the summer. In Portland, I would agree with you, but beyond that, they were effects of social unrest rather than ideological goals. People don't need to be compelled to riot. I think the Proud Bo
  12. I don't know why you brought it up, but 'A' is just an example of "when I choose it, it is good". People just as easily can think "I think it's bad, I did it, and when I choose it it's still bad". Again, I don't even know why you brought this up. The point of my post was that the summer and the Capitol insurrection and riots are significantly different events. These events are wrong for different reasons.
  13. It's important to remember these things are significantly different. January 6th was done in the name of Trump, with the minority in it perhaps just because it was chaotic. Any riots in the summer were not generally done in the name of anything but taking advantage of the chaos of protests. That isn't to say no one participated in riots without any ideological reason, but that the majority had no ideological reason. It doesn't matter though, January 6th wasn't only a riot, there was a clear insurrection involved among the people inside. I'm not saying either one is less bad, just that they are
  14. Not even a post from Q today. Man, I'm so disappointed!
  15. I don't know what you're trying to tell me? Like I said, the media never played fair. Sure there are degrees of unfairness, but the 1890s were easily as bad as today if not worse.
  16. I specifically said the people who were advocating for Trump. Most of them were. In the link I gave you showing people inside the Senate chambers, they were all for Trump. If you condemn them, great. But you did seem to retract from saying it was a complete false flag before, to now the claim that there were agents provocateur, many of them were Trump supporters, but Trump had no responsibility (I disagree but it's something I guess). Maybe I use this phrase differently than most people. I meant they "an embarrassment" in the sense of "although they claim to be on my side, they are not
  17. So do you condemn the people who stormed the Capitol who explicitly advocated for Trump? Could you acknowledge that they were not antifa and also say they are an embarrassment to Republicans and Trump?
  18. So what if you can't? Why do you phrase it that way rather than saying it is the only theory you have evidence for? They don't need to be told anything, that's why an agent provocateur can be effective. All the Trump supporter needs to see is a brick go through a window. Then they will continue from there because they already wanted to storm the Capitol. And we have evidence of that, I don't even think I need to mention it it's so well-known. It might not logically follow, but it emotionally follows. "Sleepy Joe is bad. Election stolen. Orange man say fight like hell!" And no, it is n
  19. "Up until a few decades ago, the mainstream media played fair." You told me yourself that they used to play fair. Now you're saying you agree that they never played fair, but they just never played as unfair? All I can say is that they have always played this unfair, you just haven't noticed until recently. And yes, Newsmax is guilty and perhaps more guilty than CNN (media in general, not just the mainstream).
  20. Give an example of a time that the media was impartial. The avalanche you are referring to is the avalanche of examples where the press and media has never been impartial. If it's impossible to give an example, that's my point: the press has never been impartial, so how could you possibly come up with an example? Why did you think I was asking for examples of media bias, when I gave you at least 5 examples so far? I think you read the first few words and then stopped reading my post.
  21. Who are you telling? I mean, it's fine to say what you think, but it doesn't seem like you agree with Peikoff. I think the common missing fact of many of your claims have to do with the ways people can fail at their intentions or the ways people can fail to recognize what a rational course of action would be. This is only true if you assume that a person acted rationally. Sure, maybe the right had everything to lose, but that doesn't mean people didn't do it anyway. Another way to explain what happened is "the right had everything to lose, and because they were emotionally outr
  22. Be specific. What are you comparing "like this" with? How do I know you just weren't paying very good attention before? I need examples. When was it more fair? The 1890s muckraking journalism was a thing, mostly biased to make any capitalistic thing look bad? Are you talking about the Spanish-American war, which is one of the most egregious example of media bias that supports state imperialism explicitly in American history? Are you talking about the 60s where even the NYT mischaracterized the nature of many civil rights activists except MLK? I gave you older examples even. If you are only pic
  23. When did the media ever play fair? As long as the press has existed, people have accused it of being necessarily petty, unfair, or improperly biased. I don't know what time of impartiality you're talking about. American press always had an axe to grind against someone, going all the way back to before the revolution. The Boston massacre was a wild media exaggeration of an unfortunate event, making it seem like the British soldiers murdered a bunch of people on purpose when in fact they were provoked into a confusing situation and opened fire (that should sound familiar, and this was 230 years
  24. Maybe the last appeal to reason that I have is this: https://imgur.com/gallery/fVspGxA But it's also interesting for anyone who is curious to see how far people got into the Senate and to what extent they even felt safe. And it's pretty bad that a cop was complicit.
×
×
  • Create New...