I do like me a Guinness. It's my go to actually.

There is nothing more absurd then an american trying to tell the rest of the world that they don't know how to drink or hold their liquor. — Akanthinos

Let's see... A challenge of sorts. How about a rabbit that gives birth to a house full of people playing Trivial Pursuit where they're arguing over whether Sally already answered the pie piece Arts and Literature question but Kevin can't find his stapler to fasten his letters from back home that were unstamped.

I'd think that's more absurd than an American commenting on Irish drinking habits. So color you wrong.

@Baden And grits are dried ground corn. There's really no juice. You pour boiling water in them to make them edible, so grit juice would be hot water I guess. We use that to also make our tea that we then dump sugar in until it's semi-solid and we eat it with a fork. It's customarily served with a side of diabetes.

Your people are quite charming, what with those accents and ruddy little cheeks. Then sometimes they take to drinking and it can take a bad turn.

That Michael Higgins though. Just adorable. https://www.boredpanda.com/people-love-ireland-president-michael-higgins/

It's simple. European media is better and less biased than yours. Follow our relatively successful model instead of your relatively failed one. Same goes for health care etc. You're just slow learners over there. — Baden

You're on a quite the hate train today. I like your passion though. You're almost as brazen as an American. Almost.

America is doing something right though. We've exported our goods and culture throughout the world. You can't get away from us.

On the other hand, Ireland's biggest export is your fleeing people. I think there's probably more Irish in Boston than Dublin. If you guys hate us, why do you keep coming over here?

Go home, leave the world alone, stop messing things up for everyone else. — Baden

As you might be surprised to learn, I have little power over such decisions. Your hypothetical of what the world would be like without American international military involvement is obviously unanswerable, but it's very doubtful the West would have fared so well without US protection. But, whatever, be an ingrate. I'll still invite you over for tea.

From who though? Europe has a nuclear deterrent that's enough to keep Russia at bay and it's not in Russia's interest to attack us. Besides, I think we ought to wean ourselves off relying on America and spend more on our own defense. Let you save money and go home. Everyone wins. — Baden

Why isn't Ireland negotiating for a nuclear free North Korea?

My proposal would be that you put more funding into a regulated national broadcaster like NPR so it could be something like the BBC and would not be by law allowed to be openly biased. — Baden

I'm actually not the first to argue that the BBC is biased. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

A free press is a check on government power, and it's typical of oppressive governments to control the media. A government imposed law illegalizing bias or even offering a certification for those organizations the government finds unbiased is an oppressive act. You're free to argue the BBC is a straight shooter, but surely you see a problem with the government blocking those news organizations that offer news varying from the BBC's governmentally decreed "unbiased" views.

If we did allow the government to decide what news to report, I propose Trump decide. If not him, then who and why? It's an awfully powerful position, and I hope my side gets chosen to write the history.

Ireland isn't safe because it's neutral. It's safe for the same reason no one steals my shoes from my unlocked gym locker. No one wants it.

Fool yourself into thinking America offers you no protection. It really doesn't matter. They'll protect you anyway.

Not exclusively but regulation works. Ever hear of the BBC? Compare that to the shitshow that is CNN and Fox. — Baden

What regulations do you propose on CNN and Fox?

The US press will generally give you a pass if you do something like support or ignore Israel murdering Palestinians, generally just kill lots of brown people in the middle East for whatever reason, or support dictators, warlords who do so in whatever way it serves your interest etc. — Baden

What color were the Nazis and the Russians?

There's nothing moral about sitting on the sidelines criticizing the one keeping you safe at night.

The vast majority of your news is privately owned, private owners have private interests, and there's no regulation concerning bias, — Baden

And the solution is a government run press?

What about the needless and predicable chaos and death he recently caused in the Middle East? Oh that? — Sapientia

Obama dropped 26,071 bombs in 2016 alone. Oh that? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

give this guy a medal. Better yet, a meeting with the Queen and a Nobel Peace Prize. — Sapientia

Actually, Obama did get a Nobel Peace Prize.

And so the Clintons were worse and the press gave them a pass. This offeris support for Trump's attack on the press, right?

If the press is in the business of supporting candidates, then candidates ought attack those supporting their opponents.

I don't so much have his back as much as I see someone not doing the harm imagined and burping and farting at the most solemn events and really entertaining me to no end.

The economy is booming, he's tough talking, but not declaring wars, is right that we need major immigration reform, and is picking some splendid Supreme Court candidates who are willing to rein in the over-interpretation of the Constitution.

Agreed. As I said, he needs to stfu now. — Baden

Why this advice to change course? His followers are delighted and his detractors outraged.

Yes, more outrage is in order. Hear hear. Sic the newsmen on him. That should do. Never abandon a failed strategy.

we will mercilessly take the piss out of him in every way possible — Baden

A few more scathing editorials and he'll be begging for mercy I'm sure.

Do you even read the comment sections on facebook, which was now undeniably exploited by some intelligence agencies (Russian GRU, according to the latest indictments of the Mueller investigation), to stoke fears to unseen levels, among an already frightened and paranoid electorate of the US population. — Posty McPostface

The streets, once filled with daily commuters, now filled with pandemonium, bedlam, and mayhem, brought about from a few well written tweets and Facebook posts.

To be fair, this does display a double standard of dramatic proportions. Consider an attempt to apply such humor upon his predecessor.

Here's how this goes: Trump declares himself huuugely popular, his detractors point to his huuuge opposition, his detractors are reminded that he really is huuugely popular, his detractors then attack his supporters. Then (see above) more and more clever comments are shouted in the echo chamber. The right and left take turns cheering and booing. The most annoying of all are those who really think they're objective.

At this point you can only consider pointing out that fact as tantamount to trolling... — Posty McPostface

In a last ditch effort to silence those who fail to see the wisdom of your tired criticisms, you decry the truth as trolling. Nope, Trump's victory was in fact huuuge, devestating to his opponents, and it will shape politics for generations.

I think this protest is bigger than his inaugaration: — Michael

Let me count the votes that matter: 304 in favor of Trump, 270 in favor of Clinton.

Or not. That's the other potential outcome.

You can't go back and change it so who cares? — frank

You don't know what I can do.

Trump would literally have to defecate in your MAGA cap for you to change your vote, so unless I can get him to do that, I'm not expecting a different answer from you, or any Trump vote — Baden

Trump is too classy to take a hat shit.

Another typical example of Trump admin corruption: Ryan Zinke charged taxpayers $139,000 dollars to fix three doors in his office. — Baden

It's outrageous no doubt, but you've not drawn a link back from the door repair man to Zinke. It's possible that the person who hired the door fixer man was hooking a friend up, getting a kick-back, or paid so little attention to things that people ran amok. It's possible Zinke orchestrated the whole thing, but also possible he didn't know. We can speculate, be cynical, be naïve, be supportive, be critical, be whatever. All I can say is that if I had it to do all over again and could rethink my vote, I'd vote for Trump again.

Last off point comment, I promise, but what's worse than a live squirrel on your piano?

A dead beaver on your organ.

Coca cola was invented in Atlanta and the world headquarters is here. The reason people drink it is because it's delicious. People die from haters like you, not from a can of Coke. Coke does nothing but bring people together.

What are we to make of this? — Banno

That he is capable of communicating so effectively that he's been able to have secured the most competitive political position in the world, and you lack the comprehension to comprehend him or those who comprehend him.

As Dylan said, "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

By the way, I'm just wondering. If a mod bans someone wrongfully, and everyone realizes that there was no reason that person was banned, can that person be unbanned, and what happens to the mod that banned him? — René Descartes

It can happen, but the ressurected soul will be eternally burdened with the tagline "previously damned." It's only fair.

Punishment for banning wrongly will be dinner with Hanover, unless it's Hanover, in which case, dinner with Hanover's wife. — Baden

Whatever must I do to be your dinner?

By the way, we're going to close discussion on this banning within 24h to avoid going off-topic, so if anyone else has anything to add, please do so within that time. — Baden

The 18 hours or so I have left should be sufficient for all I have to say, which is just about the length of stored episodes of South Park on my DVR, so I'll multi-task while watching.

DPMartin was banned. Here's the exchange:

Hanover:

Please edit your posts and capitalize the first letter of each sentence, per our rules:

"Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout."

Nothing personal. All your posts are appreciated, and I realize you might be using your phone to post and capitalizing is cumbersome, but such are the rules.

Thanks!
Hanover

a day ago

Hanover:
I previously asked that you edit your posts to properly capitalize, and I see that you have not done that. I also see that you have continued to create additional posts that don't comply with our rules. I will need for you to go back and edit your non-complying posts and for you to respond to this PM and assure me that you will comply in the future. If you don't do both of these things, you will be banned.

22 hours ago

DPMartin:

when you start paying me for services to your satisfaction, then I'll worry about such things as grammar to your satisfaction. you can always, not read what I post, you have that right you know.

11 minutes ago

As a result, he was banned.

There should be no such special rights for someone just because of their skin color or religion or ethnicity within a nation's laws. — raza

I think the minority member's argument would be that they ought be protected from discrimination based upon their minority status and laws need to be passed to that effect.

A rock's mass, size and shape, and molecular arrangement don't depend on how humans perceive a rock. — Marchesk

This is a return to Locke's primary and secondary qualities distinction, which I think is ultimately arbitrary. Your knowledge of mass, for example, would be the sensation of its weight or perhaps your observation of a numeric representation on a scale. The same could be said of size and molecular arrangement. All that you know is what you perceive. To assert that there exists something beyond appearances is just a declaration of realism, but you have nothing to base that on. And even if we were to agree that there was an external rock with all sorts of physical characteristics that exist independent of perception, we could not begin to know or explain what those raw characteristics were because all we could refer to are the impressions of our senses.

This account, in terms of endorsement and it's withholding, has the advantage of rendering talk of appearances as derivative or parasitic upon 'is' claims (claims of reality). That is, if this account is right, then we must first be acquainted with reality (or 'things in reality') prior to being acquainted with appearances; for to be able to withhold endorsement about claims (by saying 'it seems...') presupposes that we can already speak of things as they are. Following Sellars, there is thus a logical priority of reality over appearence, and thus no need to engage with the hand-wringing over how to 'get from mere appearance to reality'. — StreetlightX

This doesn't resolve the result of Cartesian doubt. It ignores it. It is obvious that we all consider external reality obvious. Forrest Gump has no doubt he is holding a box of chocolates. It takes someone who is willing to examine the nature of reality some effort to convince himself that there might not really be a rock before him. And so Descartes' contribution was to examine this question and to doubt everything and then to locate which could not be doubted. He realized that he could not doubt appearances, could not doubt he was doubting, and therefore could not doubt he exists. That much is right.

The point here is that we are not first acquainted with things as they are; we are first acquainted with things how we think they are. We don't realize the distinction between things as we think they are and how they actually are until we engage in some amount of introspection, but that's how so much of what we know is. It's sort of like any Socratic discussion. We start with some unexamined claim and through questioning and probing we arrive at a more sophisticated and perhaps accurate response.

The problem with getting from mere appearance to reality is that of incoherence. It is not possible to describe an object without reference to appearance (or some other sensation), so to ask how can I know the rock without reference to how it looks, smells, or taste seems nonsensical. The problem then isn't that we can't know reality prior to appearance, but we can't even discuss a reality without appearances.

Then how is it I can tell the difference between the two?

Christianity is alive and well.

The tradition in the USA is a strong emphasis on 1 and 3 but there's no good argument as to why this should be the case. — Benkei

I think a good argument is that you ought allow the will of the democracy be expressed to the greatest extent possible and that you employ the non-democratic hammer of the Constitution only when you have a clear cut instance of democratic overreach. Since the Court has no external check, judicial self-restraint is a required virtue, else you have 5 philosopher kings running the nation. The liberal meltdown is justified now that Trump can create a Court in his image, but that's only because the Court has too much power.

So, I do think a good argument is that an interpretive system be adopted that limits the creative aspect of the Justices, which would mean limiting the interpretation to the words as they were used instead of looking for Constitutional themes and writing new chapters that appear to fit the theme the Justice deciphered.

My guess is that you'd have some affinity for a limited Court, considering the Dutch system is able to navigate without a Constitutional Court at all. The Court as protector against majority tyranny is greatly overstated. The best you can say is that the Court is generally good at reading the direction of the democracy and forcing issues sometimes sooner than some would prefer.

There is no security. It is a vain quest. — unenlightened

There is no absolute safety, but varying degrees, and it sounds like where you live is relatively peaceful, especially compared to other areas of the world. And the truth is that those tools of mass destruction and death you saw on display form a good part of the reason you are so safe.

But such is always the case or at least should be. We carry with us foundational principles we adhere to and from that we create a consistent world view. How is it that the subject of ethics creates less a challenge to you than your question of what is law? Belief in God, for example will similarly shape the ethical theory you accept.