I will keep a job. — S

Don't sell out. You be you.

I blame my brother for reminding me of how much fun I was having years ago. — Michael

The good old days never were. In 10 years you'll be thinking about today convinced things were so wonderful.

I think it's high time to enjoy some festivities at the sea. — Wallows

Don't drink any water so that you'll have only dry heaves. Nurse the dehydration headache by squinting directly into the sun and aggressively rubbing your temples while repeatedly muttering "Jesus" to yourself.

I'm going to try to discourage people.

This is as close to a public forum, or space, as some of us will get. Trump has apparently tweeted, "No wall, no government." To me this is a crystal clear violation of his oath of office. — tim wood

The oath of the President is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where does it say that the President has to agree to the budget submitted by Congress?

The oath of all congressmen and Senators states: "“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Does that oath require Congress to provide a budget to the President that he'll agree to sign?

It seems if two parties can't come to terms, there's equal blame from both. Does everyone get impeached when there's an impasse?

I think what might actually be occurring here is that you think Trump is an idiot and that his border wall idea will be a a multi-billion dollar moron useless erection and you think that Congress shouldn't have their arm twisted into agreeing to something that stupid. It's for that reason that you don't want to impeach Congress for not cooperating, but you do want to impeach Trump. All of this is to say that none of this has anything to do with violations of oaths, dereliction of duty, or pissing on the Constitution. It has to do with your continued disappointment that Hillary lost. The remedy is not in litigating your way into having the guy you want in office, but it's in winning the next election.

I will disagree with the notion that ignorance of the law is not a good defense because we move around a lot and when we are new to the community, we have not had time to learn the customs of that community. — Athena

Whether something is a legal defense isn't a matter of opinion, but is a matter of law. For example,, if I'm from Colorado where pot is legal and I smoke pot in Utah where it's illegal but I don't know it, I can't avoid prosecution by pleading ignorance of the law. It's not a recognized defense. On the other hand, if I shoot you to protect myself from you shooting me, I can avoid prosecution by pleading self-defense because self-defense is a recognized defense.

Foreign aid given Per Capita
1. Norway $812.58
2. Sweden $701.10
3. Luxembourg $609.48
4. Denmark $447.05
5. Switzerland $421.37
6. Netherlands $338.38
7. United Kingdom $284.85
8. Finland $234.13 — ssu

But see:
https://fee.org/articles/americans-are-more-charitable-than-socially-conscious-europeans/

And of course the question ought to be just how astronomical your charity is without universal health care, absence of free education or other "socialist" things that other, poorer countries pay with taxes? — ssu

Education in America is free from kindergarten to 12th grade. Pre-kindergarten and college is also free in my state. https://www.gafutures.org/media/187610/faqs-hope-zm-scholarship-012918.pdf.

Your comment about the generosity of Americans being explainable due to their lack of spending on healthcare doesn't follow. Americans are the most personally generous nation and they spend the most per capita on healthcare. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends

My point exactly, if you care, is showing that drug taking isn't pragmatic i — Wallows

I think that's true in most cases, but pragmatism isn't necessarily a virtue. We do all sorts of things that have no utility. An ethic of pragmatism sounds pretty dull.

I really don't think drug taking is only about satisfying a curious urge. — Wallows

It's probably true that a lot of drug use is self-medication, but I don't think it's fair to say that every sip of alcohol one takes is evidence that the person needs to seek professional help along with properly prescribed medication. There are many who live their lives taking various recreational drugs throughout their lives (not me, by the way) and live happy lives.

No, this isn't a great understanding, clever, or interesting. It's a reductio ad absurdum. The absurd argument presented is that true persuasion is the inability to persuade at all because those masters of persuasion realize all persuasion amounts to nothing more than submitting disingenuous arguments back and forth trying to trick the other into giving them what they want.

No, it isn't. There's a whole art to persuasive rhetoric. You're going to tailor it to the person you're trying to persuade, a la the traditional sense of ad hominem. And yeah, it's "disingenuous" on your view, but that hardly matters. The goal is to persuade others. — Terrapin Station

Yet you can't persuade anyone who has even an elementary understanding of your position, which is that you'll say whatever it is you need to to obtain a result, including offering entirely fraudulent reasons for your position as long as you think it might pacify them. You can't admit to disingenuousness without consequence.

"Moral debate" is purely a practical matter of trying to persuade people to not treat others (and create laws for others) in a way that you do not prefer, in a way that you disapprove of. It's akin to, say, being in a band and trying to persuade your bandmates to write or play a particular section of a song you're working on a particular way. — Terrapin Station

Then the entirety of your argument would be "don't murder because I prefer people not murder." That doesn't seem at all persuasive. If you interject other reasons, like "don't murder because human life has intrinsic value" that might be more persuasive, but it'd be disingenuous because the basis you provided had nothing at all to do with the reason why you believed murder was wrong. The reason you feel murder is wrong is because you don't prefer it. And, of course, should you prefer it, it would be right,

If though you have an underlying principle that justifies your preferences, then you need to state that principle because that principle is the primary cause of your moral judgments, not your unwashed preference.

What medical application does snorting cocaine or doing meth have? None. So, let it be prohibited is what I think is the best option. — Wallows

The problem is that you don't articulate a specific principle here that determines morality from immorality. If you are deriving a moral principal and declaring that purposeless behavior is immoral per se, then that will have to be applied to other instances other than drugs, meaning we might end up declaring things like skiing and dancing immoral.

I'm not really sure why we're reinventing the wheel here though and trying to form moral theories from scratch. Maybe we can start with some time honored solutions like Utilitarianism or Kantianism. Otherwise we're just going to hack away at our own half-baked theories and slowly watch them collapse through this Socratic dialogue.

Moral stances are personal dispositions/"feelings" about the acceptability of interpersonal behavior that one considers more significant than etiquette. — Terrapin Station

If you really adhere to Emotivism, you'll have to explain how it is at all rational to engage in ethical debate, considering you're admitting that your arguments are only valid to you. If when you say murder is "bad," you mean it's bad to you, but maybe not to me, just like I might think chocolate ice cream tastes good to me but bad to you, then it hardly makes sense for us to debate whether murder (or chocolate ice cream) is actually bad. I'm not engaging in the meta-ethical debate of whether morality is ultimately objective or subjective, but I am saying it makes no sense to present logical bases for a topic you're declaring emotional.

If you're going to say it's immoral to do drugs or immoral to illegalize drugs or assert any position on morality, you have to first assert what criteria you use to determine what is moral and then explain how those criteria are or aren't satisfied.

I would argue that law is dictated by morality, and not the dicator there of. — LuckilyDefinitive

This ignores the accepted distinction between malum prohibitum (wrongs by virtue of statute) and malum in se (wrongs in themselves). The former might be that the tax rate is 28% or the speed limit is 45. The latter would be that murder is illegal. Should a legislature decide the speed limit is to be 46, the law would be just as moral as before. If murder is declared legal, though, the law would be immoral.

No sound sweeter than the blues:

They want money so they can lead better lifestyles. — Wallows

Life is about experiences, and the value of money offers little if all you do is buy objects. Go do things, ideally, but not necessarily, with others who appreciate the journey with you. How can you be sad spelunking, scuba diving, dog sledding, or waking up in a far away land? And it hardly needs to be that unusual. It can be as little as finding an old tent and a sleeping bag and going to the mountains. Go sign up for karate lessons at the county rec office. Buy a bird. Learn to speak French really poorly. Do whatever. Live life and don't be timid.

Your primary experience as far as I can tell is moping. Pick something else to do.

That's actually very inspirational. For real. :up:

I'm lucky in that I was both born into priviledge and lucky enough to feel entitled. I'm also lucky enough not to worry about those who feel guilty for having more.

This doesn't make sense if you really think about it. Why would the EU offer a better deal to non-member States? It's not going to happen barring some full scale disintegration of the EU.Also good luck with finding an alternative market as developed with similar purchasing power and the size of the EU. So they'll have GDP growth at some point again but the GDP reduction for the next 2 to 5 years will be real (and a permanent loss compared to remaining). — Benkei

Not all of Europe is in the EU, like Switzerland, Norway, Iceland (to the extent that is part of Europe), to name a few. Why will Britain's departure spell such disaster if other nations have fared well without the EU association? Is there something distinct about Britain's dependence on the EU that doesn't affect these other nations? Maybe the rebel states could form their own confederacy.

Indeed it has/is, but you commented that we are afeared of independence, when there is no longer independence to be had. Unless you suggest we should emulate N Korea in their isolation? And even they depend (heavily) on China, the only nation that will deal with them. Independence is only attractive in theory, in today's world. — Pattern-chaser

Like I said, it's always been a matter of degree, which doesn't imply you have to accept the degree of autonomy that exists in N. Korea in order to be independent. The UK removing itself from the EU won't make it isolationist. I fully expect trade to continue, just under terms negotiated by Britain. I think there's a definition of "independent" that doesn't include being a hermit.

I just don't understand why these """intellectuals""" don't just stay in their lane. — MindForged

And the same can be said of anyone who has the spotlight on them, which is that they should limit their performance to their expertise and to what the people came to see. "Intellectuals" do it, Hollywood actors do it, rock stars do it, football players do it, and TV commentators do it, to name just a few. It's a thing now where it's considered a heroic act of conscience to stand up and speak your mind on any issue you find important, even where you have no special reason to matter.

So, if someone were to plead with a judge in the court of law that they had no free will, and the crime was due to their upbringing and social factors that ultimately led them to steal money for food, then what then? This wouldn't fly nowadays; but, could if the judge accepted the fact that they had a limited liability in committing the crime due to deterministic factors, what then? — Wallows

In the 1840s, the House of Lords arrived at the McNaughten Rule, which states as follows:

"the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_rules#Alternative_rules

This rule was adopted in the US for some time, although it has been replaced with the ALI rule in many jurisdictions:

The ALI rule is:

"(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease of defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
"(2) As used in this Article, the terms "mental disease or defect" do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct [Section 4.01]."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALI_rule

These rules presume free will unless it can be shown that the person in question lacks the ability to understand or appreciate the wrongfulness of their act. So, there is in fact a "lack of free will" defense for adults as it relates to an inability to appreciate right from wrong. This isn't limited to just the insane, but also to children and the mentally handicapped. It is a viable defense. Insanity isn't a particularly good defense in practice because once declared insane, your sentence is likely to be very lengthy because they can't release you from the state mental hospital until you're better, which is likely never.

There are no independent nations these days. We live in a global economy, and all nations are linked by this into mutual dependence. :roll: — Pattern-chaser

It's always been a matter of degree.

Honestly I don't know what to make of the UK government. I'm not sure how it has managed to function this long. — frank

The UK is steeped in tradition. It's not like they radically swing from one direction to the next. They have a monarchy for God sake. And it's not like the US Constitution has been used to maintain tradition and stability in the US. It's actually been used as a force for great change.

As Benkei also alluded to, Britain is a common law country, meaning its courts adhere very closely to precedent. I'd also point out that even in those countries with constitutions, many don't have constitutional courts vested with the power of striking down legislation. The point being, the US's method is just one of many.

The problem for the UK is the loss of direct access to the EU market for goods, services and capital. That will lead to an immediate and permanent reduction in GDP. — Benkei

This makes a number of assumptions: that the UK's free agent status won't allow them to negotiate better deals with other trading partners (like the US, Korea, or wherever), that the free trade within the EU was the most beneficial arrangement for the UK, and that the UK can't negotiate a better arrangement with the EU once they leave.

Britain going at it alone poses all sorts of risks, but if their expertise is superior, then they could be successful here. Judging from the muted enthusiasm over the whole enterprise, I'm beginning to lose confidence in them. Maybe they can hire some Americans to figure it out for them. If nothing else, they'll at least bring some optimism.

Little birdies without any wings shouldn't be pushed off cliffs and everything is not going to be alright. — Baden

First of all, if the birdies have no wings, then they're going to be eaten by those who do. It's just a matter of time. Second, yes, everything is going to be alright, the song says so:

(Germany: 46%) — ssu

This figure has gained some interest as of late, making some question who's really gaining an advantage from the centralized Euro. I realize that the UK isn't one suffering, but the German success is an interesting phenomenon.

I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright.

They could hold a second referendum, so why don't they? The democracy is obviously not allowing it. If polling shows my congressman no longer popular, is it an insult to democracy that he continue to serve? Wouldn't the democracy have the power to decide how democratically elected decisions be reconsidered?

Must they hold hourly referenda so that all decisions reflect the pulse of the public in order to meet your definition of democracy? I do believe it's fair to hold the voters to what they voted for, and I don't think any voter had the expectation that his vote was preliminary and that there'd be multiple additional referenda prior to leaving. That is, the vote to leave was really to leave.

You act like fairness and adherence to prior decisions are unrelated, and you put no value on finality, as if indecisiveness is a virtue.

So your argument is that they shouldn't have used a referendum to determine whether to stay or leave. That's critically different than the argument that they should ignore the result of the mechanism they chose to arrive at their decision.

Other than informing me of your hostility, little else is communicated in your post. It's fairly obvious that the purpose of the referendum was to determine whether the UK would stay or leave. To hold the referendum for that express purpose and then to argue that referenda aren't a valid means for the purpose expressed once a result is reached, would result in zero respect for the government, which would be even further eroded if the government assumed your arrogance and references to what science decreed.

This isn't kindergarten where I have to spell everything out for you. — Benkei

If it's not kindergarten, why the temper tantrum?

Your response is nonsense really, with this global attack against the "science" of referenda, arguing they are meaningless exercises. You ignore the fact that they are given meaning by the decree of law, which means they matter even if you think they shouldn't. If we decide to choose our representatives by the roll of the die, then that's how we do it, despite the science that shows dice aren't smart enough to choose our representatives.

So the referendum tells us nothing. It's just all a big waste of time. — Benkei

What the referendum tells us is that a majority of the people voting voted to trigger leaving and all who voted knew that was the consequence of the vote. To the extent the referendum doesn't provide us the basis for those voting, that's the fault/decision of the democratic process that created the referendum. Had the democracy wanted to know why the democracy was voting, or had it wanted the vote to provide other options, it could have asked that of the democracy, and it could have even written in that if the basis of the vote was to end immigration, then they wouldn't leave (if that's how the democracy wanted to do it). All of this is to say that the king can do whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants (within certain discriminatory limits). The king needn't be logical, honest, or virtuous. It's his kingdom and he can run it like an idiot if he wants. In this instance, the king is the people because it's a democracy, and the people can create whatever they want.

Ok, but in terms of the overall question of whether a rerun of the referendum is justified, it doesn't matter where the violation was. They cheated and that undermines the legitimacy of the result. — Baden

Ok, and a rerun undermines the legitimacy of the result as well. The question is what to do about violations. Lock the cheaters up, fine them, throw tomatoes at them, whatever. I'm just saying a re-do isn't the answer. I

I explained several times already they were officially found in violation of campaign rules. — Baden

Sure, but what was written on the bus wasn't one of them. I pointed out the violation of the rules seemed to deal with spending more than the cap permitted based upon what might be a mischaracterization by Leave regarding how money was spent.

Fascinating. — Baden

You're being dismissive of my pointing out that your characterization of German intent was incorrect. You were suggesting that Germany's remaining in the EU was mutually beneficial and for that reason it wouldn't leave. It looks like really it's unilaterally beneficial and others might be benefited from leaving, especially those poorer nations that would benefit from having their old weaker and more easily controlled currencies still in place.

I don't follow your post.

Odd then that the Leave campaign focused so much—in what turned out to be a very effective lie—on the money that was spent on the EU and how that could be saved and given to the health service. — Baden

A lie, assuming it was one, isn't a campaign violation. It's just what happens in political events. If you overturned every election every time a lie were found, we'd never have had a single leader.

But I suspect they won't and that's where the objections to re-running the referendum lie, not in any ethical or democratic basis, but in the hope that the British have been irreversibly duped into a self-destructive decision. — Baden

If the liars won, blame the truth tellers for having not gotten their message out. That's what these contests are. You don't get a do-over because one side lied.

Let us assume that all transexualism is a delusional state, the question would then be whether there is greater harm in allowing these folks to live out their delusions or in forcing them to accept that they are broken. It seems that neither body modifications (from hormones to genital changing) nor mind modifications (therapy and drugs) makes these folks into Ward and June Cleaver. So, what to do? Do we just continuously remind them that they live in a false reality, and that Bob is no more Jane than I am one of the last of the Condors?

I think there is a good argument that sexual modifications in all their varied forms do not make people happier and that it leads to all sorts of other physical problems and emotional problems, both from the effects of the surgery and the hormones and from the ostracism that occurs from the process. If it can be shown that as a medical procedure it creates more harm than good, then I'd be motivated to limit it. Otherwise, I tend to think that people can wear whatever clown suit they want, including the one I wear.

At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose. — Baden

Sure, but it's not as you said, which was that Germany had economically propped up poorer European nations and that created an overall more prosperous Europe. What appears to be happening is that the single currency is allowing Germany to dominate the poorer nations and greatly increase its exports. You were arguing that the EU helped Germany because kumbaya principles were at play. It seems like something more sophisticated and manipulative is at play.