In attempting to insult our collective intelligence you ironically made a basic error of reasoning by engaging in a hasty generalization. Clearly the only demonstrably dumb mod here is @Sapientia.

*Pulls knife out from between Sapientia's shoulder blades*

Sorry mate, had to happen. Poland is mine. >:)

His family I guess. But I suppose you could still correctly say of a dull family member of Einstein, "He's no Einstein" (which would probably confuse him for obvious reasons).

(Y)

That's a fair point. It's also fair to say you need to put a bit more effort into your OPs. Everyone would benefit from that including you. @Sapientia is right to point out it was nearly deleted.

@Agustino is being rather a poor sport here.

And it is grossly moral to consider the needs of a bunch of cells over those of a person such as the pregnant woman. — Banno

I take it you mean "immoral"?

(Does that help?)

This discussion is now closed for being ridiculous, first and foremost, and also for being the product of a racist crank who has now been banned.

Some quotes from his website (which I won't advertise here but if anyone is really interested, I will PM you the links).

"We Are The Alternative Right: thus, we support the resurgent ethnonationalism and anti-egalitarian patriarchal views coming to increasing prominence in both Europe and America and are increasingly aware of the identity of those groups which seek the degradation and genocide of our people."

"Calvinism and Nationalism are back, but they are never more powerful than when they are together (Think the Old Confederacy or Pre-Mandela South Africa)."

"We either out-right reject or sharply criticize the status quo understanding of events ranging from the Salem witch trials to the Jewish holocaust"

"HOWEVER, this exception notwithstanding, interracial marriage is always consciously “disloyal” and “unhealthy.”"

Oh, sorry, insensitive of me. @Sapientia mentioned it earlier somewhere (though he stole the idea from me :) )

(By the way, here's some more stuff that we don't need to debate but that anyone could make spurious arguments about:

Eating a banana is assault (already mentioned)
Vegetables are animals
Human faeces contains intelligence and should have rights

And so on...The list is endless.)

You should probably be careful what you write, or those who are actually kings of the forest, at least on this forum, will shut us down. — T Clark

It's unlikely in this case as the whole premise is absurd. We all know contraception is not murder. Anyone in doubt can look the word up in a dictionary. So, if VS believes that people should be imprisoned or even executed for using contraception or wasting sperm in other ways, that's not sexist or racist or homophobic, just a bit silly. But who knows? Maybe this will lead onto a more interesting topic that is worthy of debate (though I doubt it). In any case, carry on...

(Y) This is far superior.

Anyway, much of what is written in the OP above makes sense and what does is already being implemented. It's a pity this is most likely a troll and therefore the discussion will be closed.

EDIT: After corresponding with VS, I'm suspending judgement on the latter but I don't feel we need to open up the whole racism/sexism thing again anyway as we've had so much of it lately, so I'm leaving this discussion closed. If anyone else does have a burning desire to hash this out more, you can start a new discussion, but I don't think we mods have got much left to say about it that hasn't been said already in the recent past.

Thanks for your input, although considering the fact that you listed "trolling" as one of your loves on your bio before removing it, and that the following is still there:

"I enjoy impregnating my wife so my lineage will conquer the world, and getting frequent blowjobs just because I can"

I don't take any of this seriously.

Well that was pretty clear to me so... (Y)

Glad you decided to stick around and, yes, that is possible...Feel free to explore the idea. :)

Posters get a ribbing all the time here including @Hanover. Just take it on the chin. And, yes, your posts are needlessly verbose and obscure, which is fine in the Shoutbox or the lounge (where I enjoy and appreciate the poetic element of your language) but not in the philosophical categories where precision and clarity are more important than verbal gymnastics. Anyway, your last post is pretty clear. Why not stick to that level of expression in the philosophical discussions and go more poetic elsewhere? You do add a bit of colour to the site, so I'd be sorry to see you go (despite all those terrible things you said about us ;) ).

You have your answer. Case closed.

@Rich
@noAxioms
@TheMadFool
@MikeL
@fdrake
@mcdoodle
@T Clark

This discussion was deleted accidentally and has now been restored. Please feel free to continue.

Well, this is a rather incompetent attempt at character assassination. You need to up your game, fellas. Anyway, regarding the objectionable content, @John Gould, what we need from you is an immediate stop to your repeated postings of stuff we asked you not to post. Otherwise, immediate ban.

Edit: As I've now been informed John Gould was warned of a banning by another moderator on the same issue 25 days ago, he has now been banned.

What @StreetlightX and @Hanover said is where we are on this officially. Scientific data is one thing and that alone does not breach guidelines; but the manipulation of scientific data for racist reasons is another. And we'll tend to err on the side of caution when judging for the presence of the latter, i.e. if there's any hint of a racist agenda, the discussion will be deleted.

Jokes aside, John, it's simple psychology: come with good intentions, leave with good results. Be as strident as you want with your philosophy (within reason and considering the subject) but if you want a decision changed in future, try dismounting your high horse.

It's not a theory, it's how things work around here, Zarathustra. Get used to it.

I wish it was because you weren't oblivious to how you come across. But I doubt it. Complaints are always a negotiation. You come in throwing grenades, you're unlikely to get very far. Anyway, your post was deleted due to its content and tone, not a vendetta.

By the way, Feedback posts should be addressed to the mod team as a whole or no-one at all. If you want to talk to one mod or admin in particular, you can PM them.

I think this is a personal axe grind on your part and this type of confrontational and unproductive attitude was also apparent in your OP, which contributed to it being deleted, a decision I am fully behind.

Your English is better than Trump’s although that's not exactly a blazing endorsement. ;)

Zizek does an interesting analysis of this in one of his several million online vids. And I thought we discussed it here or on old PF before.

No, an unknown known is something that you know, but you don't know you know. Something you thought you knew but isn't is just a false belief.

And unlikely to recover as it's been somewhat cannibalized by dclements' thread, which discusses the similarities between Trump and Bilbo Baggins.

Lol, will do. (Y)

The rich sit on the shoulders of society @Agustino. They don't levitate to their position but climb up there because there is a solid social body in place to support them. Trump's budget is the equivalent of inviting them to piss down that body's neck. The next step will be to let them strangle it completely. Don't think they will then remain magically afloat. Everyone will be on the ground.

but you seem to be jumping to these conclusions based on what you personally think about Trump's character, and I don't think that's very useful when judging his tax policy for example — Agustino

No, I base these conclusions on the actual budget. The 1.74 trillion cut in anti-poverty programs in particular. I actually didn't think Trump would be this bad as during his campaign he seemed to be the one promising to keep the safety net in place. Then again, he wanted the votes of poor white folks. Now, he's got them, he's reverted to doling out presents to people like him. But, yes, I don't like his character either for obvious reasons.

Silly meme >> evasive dodge >> :-d

I think you are actually more thoughtful than this and your position is probably more nuanced, but Trump's isn't. He doesn't give a flying about the poor or their problems because he can't relate to them. Don't jump on his depraved bandwagon.

the government is an evil. — Agustino

Don't call the police next time you get robbed then. Stop using public roads and boycott the fire brigade. Get out there and protest against public transport, libraries and schools. Good luck with that.

Did you not read that 26.9% of the richest 20% will actually see their taxes go up?
Did you not read that 22% of the next bracket of rich will see their taxes go up? — Agustino

(Edit) Yes, and 35.5% of the poorest will either see their taxes go up or get nothing.

+Most (65%) of those earning 25,000 or less will get a tax break of 100 bucks. Less than 1%. Most (73%) of those earning over 150,000 will get 20,000 on average, the exact percentage depending on how much they earn but likely significantly higher than 1% for most of them.

And I don't really agree with super high taxes for the rich. — Agustino

So what? You don't have that anyway.

In addition, if I do end up rich, there's the problem of why should the state be an administrator for my wealth? — Agustino

This is just babble. Without the state, you are nothing. Go live in the woods and see how rich you get there.

I should start my own programs to give to the poor, and the state should not tax me anymore. They should give me full tax breaks so long as I give a certain amount of my income to the poor! — Agustino

I have a feeling you're more interested in being rich than helping the poor. If you want to help the poor, don't vote for someone who wants to take their benefits away and give them to the rich in tax cuts.

It seems quite fair to you to give huge amounts of money in tax cuts mostly to rich people who don't need it and pay for that by cutting anti-poverty programs by 1.74 trillion + cuts to education, health etc... If that seems fair to you, you have a very perverse view of fairness.

Do you read your own posts? The poorest will gain a measly 100 bucks each on average (or pay 380 more, which they can't afford). The richest will gain 20,000 bucks more each on average (which they don't need, or pay 3990 more, which will make hardly a difference to them). Also, it's the richest three bands that have the highest percentage of beneficiaries as well as the highest net benefits. That equates to tax cuts for the rich, or if you want to be more precise, tax cuts overwhelmingly aimed at benefitting the rich.

Are you trying to defend him or bury him? You realize that all that red is intended to finance tax cuts for the rich and that the debt is projected to increase right??

Have you been tuning in to fake news? — Agustino

Yes, it was fake news that made me think Trump's budget included over a trillion dollars in cuts to anti-poverty measures. That and reading from the actual budget. I would have thought as a supposed Christian a proposed attack on the most vulnerable in society in order to fund tax cuts for the rich and increased military spending might bother you...(Just kidding. I knew you wouldn't care. What's important is Trump is rude and loud and hates lefties).

Cons:
Ballooning debt
Increasing poverty
Degrading environmental protections (locally and globally)
Encouraging xenophobia
Legitimizing vulgar discourse
Legitimizing corrupt business practices
Attacking freedom of the press
Excessively increasing military spending
Decreasing security (e.g. increasing threat of nuclear war)
Disregarding honesty / integrity of office
Delegitimizing judiciary / constitutional checks and balances

Pros:
Entertaining