For me the enemy is always the enemy combatants, fighters or servicemen. Legal or illegal. Not the civilians. — ssu

True, but Israel can’t always be sure. I think their attitude is exactly the one that’s been adopted for decades: the entire population is the enemy. No need to question why — like the fact that Gaza is a concentration camp. That’s irrelevant history.

October 7th was a blessing for Likud. It finally provided them with a reaction that was hideous enough to use as pretext for their long-desired ethnic cleansing. So it goes.

We smash you over the head for decades, and now we’re going to murder you for lashing out. Lashing out with the wrong intentions in your heart is immoral, after all. Only Israel knows how to APPROPRIATELY murder babies.

Avoid ultra processed food at all costs. — Christoffer

:up:

What counts as ultra-processed?

Finally got it down to a decent routine. Here’s my current schedule (in case you want to doze off):

(A) Mondays:

- squats
- military press
- rows
- dynamic lunges

Tuesday:

- carries
- core workout
- HIIT training

(B) wednesday:

- Deadlifts
- bench press
- static lunges
- pullups (or lat pulldowns)

Thursday: same as Tuesday

Friday: same as Monday.

SAT and SUN: Rest days.

I rotate so that I do B twice a week and then back to A and so on.

It SUCKS! But it’s been worthwhile

With you, nothing is certain even with the emoji. — L'éléphant

I’m a volatile one, I admit.

The goofy second amendment, which was only re-interpreted to mean what we think it always has in 2008, should be abolished.

Gun manufacturers, their lobby, their propaganda, and the dupes that fall for it, have done enough damage and killed enough children. In a rational society they’d be in prison, or worse. May they rot in hell.

I mean, I did add that winking emoji.

Let’s take the absurd number of Hamas fighters killed at face value. 40,000 - 13,000. I’m no math genius, but 27,000 more to go?

At this rate, given that the total number of innocents dead is probably closer to 100,000 or more, looks like Israel’s goal of ethnic cleansing will be seen through to the very end, international condemnation be damned.

They deserve to be a pariah at this point. Even the dopey US — the provider of the weapons — is slowly waking up thanks to the breaking away from mainstream media propaganda.

Just fucking with you.

:yawn:

Don’t overthink it. This is an opinion piece. Or better: a rant piece in which I express my annoyance at stupid bullshit.

Russia proposed to give back all the territory they conquered during the invasion in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. It's the West who blocked that deal. The Ukrainian delegation put its signature under it, whether you like it or not.

The "Russian territorial greed" narrative is swept off the table, and so is the narrative that the West is preoccupied in any way with the well-being of Ukraine. — Tzeentch

:up:

I heard Mitt Romney say that if Putin isn’t stopped he’ll attack NATO counties and try to conquer all of Eastern Europe. :lol:

It’s just silly at this point. Ukraine will lose this proxy war, but hopefully not many more lives will have to be sacrificed.

Biden Administration Raises Costs to Drill and Mine on Public Lands

For the first time since 1920, the government has raised the rates that companies pay. The fossil fuel industry says it will hurt the economy.

About time.

Any time the fossil fuel industry says something will “hurt the economy,” what they mean is: now we’ll have to gouge consumers even more to maintain our returns for our billionaire masters.

Supporters say the changes announced Friday will better compensate taxpayers for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands, and that they will prevent taxpayers from footing the bill for cleanup of abandoned oil and gas wells. After ending their drilling operations or going out of business, fossil fuel companies have walked away from thousands of wells, leaving the sites leaking greenhouse gases and toxic substances such as arsenic and benzene.

The bipartisan infrastructure law of 2021 provided a record $4.7 billion for states’ efforts to plug these “orphan” wells. But the federal funding may make only a small dent in the problem, with some experts estimating that there could be millions of undiscovered orphan wells across the country.

“There are costs of doing business, and the industry should shoulder the costs of cleanup for their operations,” said Autumn Hanna, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. “They’re extracting oil and gas from public lands for their own profit, and those resources are owned by taxpayers, who should not be left to shoulder the cleanup costs themselves.”

Kate Groetzinger, communications manager at the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation group, said the changes are “only fair” after the country’s largest oil and gas companies reported their biggest annual profits in a decade last year. ExxonMobil reported $36 billion in earnings, while Chevron netted $21.4 billion.

"That's begging the question." — Vera Mont

Oh god, yes. I nearly forgot about that one. How many people who use “begging the question” actually know what it means? Maybe 10%, in my experience. The one’s who do understand it almost never use it.

I think people just like trotting out terms they think come from “philosophy.” About the only thing that occurs regularly is strawmaning, which isn’t so complicated.

“We don’t pay mooks.”

If you've read The Republic, how did you approach it? — dani

When I first read it, I was thinking it wouldn’t live up to the hype. But I was wrong — it really is important. It shouldn’t be intimidating, but I can understand why it would be, given — again —the way it’s been built up.

I’ve re-read it a few times and I also remember liking Will Durant’s synopsis of it. Happy reading!

And just how many persons from 1967 would know many from that list? — ssu

I’ve gradually added to the list. It made more sense in the original list. But good point.

Madonna, 122 years. — ssu

Hopefully not. Good lord.

:scream:

There is nothing wrong with pointing out a fallacy or saying "that's not an argument" so long as they at least offer an explanation for their comments. — L'éléphant

Sorry, but simply saying there is nothing wrong with it is not an argument.

:wink:

I hope you’re right. I’m not so convinced about the senate though.

When two climate geniuses agree, you know you’re on the right track. :victory:

That’s not an argument.

People are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to transition away from fossil fuels. — RogueAI

People make sacrifices all the time, especially for the oil industry. Whether they know it or not. The assessment that everyone needs to “sacrifice” for a green transition in the first place is silly — but even if true, since we all do it all the time anyway, it’s really yet another way of justifying the status quo. “Nothing can be done— the people don’t want to sacrifice!”

No thanks. If you feel nothing can be done, then go on doing nothing.

We're going to have to either hope for some tech miracle, hope the Earth is self-regulating in some way as to prevent warming from getting too bad, or geo-engineering our way out of it. — RogueAI

Yes, because your expert knowledge on this issue is definitely worth paying attention to. :up:

But really this is just given to divert attention and responsibility from Gaza. “But hey, what about all the OTHER bad things happening in the world?” — Mikie

So U.S. consumers aren't supporting China when they buy hundreds of billions of cheap Chinese crap every year? — RogueAI

:ok:

Perfection.

People aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary for real solutions. — RogueAI

Right, so it’s hopeless. Cool analysis. Bye.

aspects of China — Mikie

:up: Not comparable. China isn’t murdering thousands with US support /weapons.

Still should be paid attention to and condemned.

But really this is just given to divert attention and responsibility from Gaza. “But hey, what about all the OTHER bad things happening in the world?”

Pretty pathetic, really.

Question - would you be upset if Israel killed 15k Palestinians but they were all Hamas? What are your thoughts on the dead Hamas fighters? — Moses

If they were all Hamas fighters who engaged in murder on October 7th? I wouldn’t be upset, no. It wouldn’t change the causes of those actions, however.

Also what do you think about the much larger death tolls elsewhere in the world that receive virtually zero attention and zero mass protests? — Moses

Like what, exactly? Because I see nothing comparable to what Israel is doing. If you look at Sudan, or Congo, or Haiti, or aspects of China/India/Central America, or Yemen, or repression in Saudi Arabia, etc., there’s a lot we should be paying attention to.

The level of US involvement is what especially motivates me, however — as it’s the country I live in and can perhaps mildly influence. They’re currently providing the weapons and financial support that’s contributing to this genocide. I want that to stop, at a minimum.

The latest from our resident climate denial propagandist:

Here are some interesting comments about School Strike for Climate. — Agree-to-Disagree

Before even reading, I’m thinking to myself “Gee, I wonder if these ‘interesting comments’ will have a negative slant?”

Demanding that governments damage their economies in the name of climate science — Agree-to-Disagree

:lol: What complete bullshit.

The school strikes are heroic and inspirational, climate denial propaganda notwithstanding.

Thousands more dead, protests in Israel itself, and the world easily recognizing how horrid this genocide really is…

And through it all, the apologists on this thread keep fighting the good fight. Because “hamas.” Oh how complicated it all is!

Except when sub-humans do things. That’s easy to condemn, because they have bad intentions.

Unlike real, sophisticated humans, who might kill 100 times more babies, but have very good intentions. Also “Human shields” and so forth. Nothing to condemn there.

I prefer analysis, explanation, analogy, illustration, even pontification. — unenlightened

You excel at 1/5th of those! :wink:

Speaking of imbeciles. :lol:

Edit: sorry, that was mean. I’ll just put you on the ignore list— have fun with your future Tweets. Bye!

:rofl: Too bad for me!

Oh, and to clarify:

An argument is the presenting of reasons/evidence for a claim or conclusion. Really that simple.

Sorry, that’s “not an argument.” :rofl: Too bad for you!

Simply stating Biden is better than Trump on all issues — boethius

So you’re just in imbecile? Got it. My bad for engaging. Have fun with your straw men. Bye.

That's exactly what your argument is, that Biden is better on climate change. — boethius

No. My argument (so glad to know I have an argument now) is that given two choices, Biden is clearly better. Climate change is one example, and a good one.

Do we have to go over what “example” means, or do we need to incorporate “argument” and “fallacy” first? Maybe first principles…

so really by "significant difference" you mean zero practical difference but some difference in rhetoric, which you claim is important. — boethius

No, I mean significant. In comparison to Trump — who, again, believes it’s a hoax.

That you don’t know the impact of the IRA or EPA policy isn’t my fault. Your ignorance on this matter is indicative of the general struggle to determine who’s “better.” So again, my point is proven: you’re just not paying attention. I’ll be happy to go over the details— but I won’t hold my breath. I’m sure you’ll go on pretending that you’re an expert instead.

When I pointed out that climate change is only one dimension of evaluation you then respond to that just repeating your point about climate change. — boethius

You know, there’s an easy way to see what happened: go back and read.

I didn’t respond by repeating the point about climate change, I responding by explaining that climate change is ONE EXAMPLE.

“One dimension.” Laughable. It’s called an example. But please keep trying to intellectualize something a child can understand.

Not only have you presented no reason to believe Biden's duplicitous rhetoric, i.e. corrupts utterings in service of the oil lobby, is any better than Trump's overt utterings in service of the oil lobby in terms of consequence, you just ignore the other subjects such as Biden's complicity in a literal genocide. — boethius

No— this is your fabrication. I quoted what both men have said about climate change, which is evidence enough — but beyond that, mentioned the IRA of Biden and Trump policies and actions, including appointing an oil lobbyist as head of the EPA, as further evidence beyond simple rhetoric.

That you don’t remember any of this is your problem, not mine. Your delusions of “What happened” are pathetic, when there’s a clear record of it. Just scroll up.

Then, your guy, backs, finances, arms, helps coordinate, carries water for and covers with gaslights, encourages to "keep doing what they're doing", in participating in a literal genocide and it's "nothing to see here". — boethius

Which is why I’ve been condemning Biden and US policy both in Ukraine and Israel for years…also easy to look up.

God you’re delusional. (“My guy.” Lol.)

You provide one dimension of analysis, don't even argue that, then dismiss all the other dimensions of analysis in just stating Biden is better on everything. — boethius

No: I provide one example (and then many others), gave evidence, and have acknowledged your apparently one-track issue (war) many times, both here and for years on this forum.

But keep living in a fantasy if you want to. Pure strawmen — that’s all you’ve got so far, because you’re too childish to slow down and read carefully enough to comprehend what’s being written to you.

Sorry, but your self-serving narrative is blinding you from the reality.

The reality is this:

1) You made a ridiculous statement about there being “no basis” to determine whether Trump or Biden will be “better.”

2) I give one example where the differences both in ideology, rhetoric, and policy are stark.

3) You blather on about how that is “one dimensional analysis,” a “fallacy,” and “not an argument.”

4) Then you make up a bunch of bullshit out of thin air, creating strawman after strawman. Since that’s all you’re apparently intellectually capable of engaging with, I don’t blame you.

I’ll ignore the rest of your unlettered response. I’m sure it’s more of the same. Since you’re arguing against an imaginary opponent anyway, I don’t really need to be involved. The record is quite clear.

Trump versus Biden isn’t a hard choice.

That doesn’t mean Biden is “my guy,” it doesn’t mean his policies have been great, it doesn’t mean his foreign policy should be ignored, it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be criticized, it doesn’t mean he’s a good man, etc. It means exactly what I said in response to your ridiculous statement: given 2 choices, one is clearly worse than the other and we should vote against the worse one.

Very simple. Yes, I know you struggle with it— I’m clear. It’s clear you don’t find it simple or easy. But as I’ve said several times, the reason for this is that you’re not paying attention; you’re ignorant. That’s understandable when you’re focused almost exclusively on foreign policy — if I were in your shoes, perhaps I’d be confused to. But even on that point, there’s no good reason to believe a demented, megalomaniacal degenerate will do any better on foreign policy.

The fallacy is taking one dimension of evaluation and claiming it's conclusive. — boethius

Strawman.

I never did that. I gave ONE example that demonstrates ONE way in which there are significant differences and in which one administration is clearly better — which was in response to your difficulty determining such.

You are welcome to make the argument that Biden's complicity in genocide is a "no biggy" or even a positive. — boethius

Strawman. I never once said that. Stop making things up.

You are welcome to make the argument that advancing geriatric dementia in the president isn't a war risk — boethius

Strawman.

(But who are you talking about, Trump or Biden? Both are geriatric. Claiming only Biden is off his rocker is swallowing right wing propaganda wholesale. Not a surprise.)

What I'm pointing out is you haven't make any such argument, you've just blurted "Mahhhh! Climate Change!!" which isn't an argument. — boethius

One has done the most of any president for climate change; one says it’s a hoax. That to you amounts to “Mahh climate change!”? Are you just a child?

You could make a nuanced argument that, while we both agree Biden is a terrible candidate who shouldn't be president, he's not as bad as Trump — boethius

I do so, and more than happy to get into the weeds about each one:

So is environmental destruction. So is a judiciary that wants to take rights away. So is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and exacerbating inequality. So is trillions in student loans and making it impossible for students to cancel them. — Mikie

Your response:

Simply stating that Trump is worse on all issues of concern isn't an argument. — boethius

So pointing out that Biden is far better on climate change “isn’t an argument.” Pointing out numerous other ways Trump is worse also “isn’t an argument.” So cool: you don’t know what an argument is.

As an aside: I see a pattern among members who aren’t that bright but who want to sound bright: claim everything is a “fallacy,” and use the phrase “That isn’t an argument” — like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with.

Remember how this started. I’ll remind you, since you’ve clearly forgotten:

I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration — boethius

So my point stands: you just haven’t paid attention. A Biden administration is better and will be better than a Trump administration, on nearly every metric.

What there’s no basis for is the belief that Trump will do any better on Israel. There’s some reason to think he’d be “better” on Ukraine, in that he’ll let Putin do whatever he wants (and will thus end the war), but he’s such a geriatric dementia patient it’s impossible to predict. Even so, it doesn’t negate every other way in which he’s simply awful — and which you want to ignore. So you’re not just ignorant, but willfully so. (But let me guess: that’s “not an argument.”)

It’s not a hard choice.

President Biden has done more to address climate change than any of his predecessors. So far, voters don’t seem to care.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/biden-is-spending-1-trillion-to-fight-climate-change-voters-dont-care-21d8cb05?mod=mhp

:chin:

At least nice that the reactionary Wall Street Journal acknowledges his climate bona fides.

I posted an article about the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court and said this decision will clinch this battleground state (in which the polls are currently even/showing Trump leading) for Biden.

You respond with “that seems unlikely given the 2020 results.” But he won in 2020, so why his winning in 2024 seems unlikely given the winning results in 2020 makes no sense.

But maybe you meant something else, like given the small margins Biden won by it’s unlikely he wins this time, given the current polls, or whatever. Just lazily worded, and misses the point.

Clear enough? Cool.

I am aware. — AmadeusD

:ok: A+

But that seems unlikely given the 2020 result for Biden. — AmadeusD

He won Arizona in 2020.