Yeah the media made Trump fuck a porn star while his wife was pregnant with his child, which occurred slightly over 10 years ago, when Trump was "not old" I guess. Gotcha.

And you don't think this "cultivated" immoral traits and characteristics that would adversely affect his Presidency?

Oh yeah I totally misread that, but in my defense I've only had a few sips of coffee this morning

I have no problem being disliked by stupid people, although I'm quite certain that Tiff does like me.

I wonder how it is that Agustino thinks casual sex is immoral, and further, that it "cultivates selfishness", "treats persons as objects", and "damages loyalty and devotion", and yet shows devoted admiration towards Donald Trump, who not only engaged in casual sex many many many times, but cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star.

Maw, your remark about me is amazing considering you were the one that moved me on this issue. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Fair enough, but I only moved you because an actual Holocaust survivor acknowledged parallels to family separation policy and detainment in concentration camps, to the pre-genocidal era of Nazism. Not every Holocaust survivor agrees with this parallel, by the way, I recently watched a video in which a Holocaust survivor denounced such analogies, but I think he is very mistaken.

The point I was making with the Sisyphean task remark, is that you continue to bring up questions or remarks that were answered or explained by articles, or research that I and others have provided across this thread. For example, you ask why there wasn't outrage towards Central American parents who send their children across the border alone (i.e. unaccompanied minors), but I directly shared with you an article about the dire situation in these areas, whether its extreme poverty, or ubiquitous gang violence, or, most likely, a combination. If your son was approached by gangs, or threatened by vicious gangs, or if your daughter was threatened with rape or murder, the logical (though nevertheless difficult) decision is to send them away, because anything would be better than death. That's why there is no "outrage". These parents aren't sending there children away because they want them to abuse our public resources or some nonsense, or come to America just to join MS-13. They are sending them away to escape certain violence and poverty, and to try and find a better life, as any parent is wont to do. The fact that this has been brought up several times but you can't seem to absorb it and learn from it, demonstrates that a lot of what I and others say are falling on deaf ears. Hence the Sisyphean task.

And come on Tiff, you just shared a Breitbart article ffs....

This story is something straight out of Kafka.

Thank you @InternetStranger for demonstrating to us what many moral philosophers call, "being a dick".

Moral realism is of course entirely justified, however it is impossible because too many people are too stupid — Marcus de Brun

It's not about (im)possibility. We always already find ourselves in a 'moral world' with others, and so the urgent question is: how do we act and engage with others, and how does that affect ourselves?

Insofar as human nature is real, insofar as human well-being is real, and insofar as human suffering is real (often in gratuitous forms), then it seems inescapable that moral realism is justified.

Personally, I think engaging with Tiff on immigration is nothing more than a Sisyphean task.

I think you may prefer The Real and Its Double

The article only mentions that it's "not uncommon". I don't think it's semantically reasonable to exchange "not uncommon" with "many". I guess my point is that the majority of adults who are with children are biological parents, so this hysteria over human traffickers is largely overblown. And while this is undeniably a concern and should be thwarted, it shouldn't be used as a clarion call to justify separations, abuse, etc.

Many are not their parents — ArguingWAristotleTiff

"Many"?

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has Alzheimer's or something.

the context doesn't make it any less stupid

When I first saw this quote being shared around Facebook, I thought it was just a parody. I can't believe he actually said this....

Looks like the only thing that emerged from Trump's meeting with Kim Jong Un is that a higher percentage of Republicans have a more favorable view of a murderous despot than they do Nancy Pelosi.

Either that or a troll. Regardless, someone just ban him. He hasn't contributed in the slightest and is just wasting everyone's time with his crap.

This dude is a straight up moron, that's it.

Still unsure what the components of 'Western Civilization' are, and if it is distinct from the equally confused concept of 'White Civilization'.

That's hilarious coming from a goober who claimed that the Nazi's did not bomb Buckingham Palace due to some idiosyncratic conspiracy theory, and who then adjusted his argument several times only to eventually fall silent after being proven wrong multiple times.

Maybe do a better job of comprehending what members in this forum are saying, especially when they are directly replying to what you write?

In what way is he or she a "minority member" of this forum anymore than I am based on my views? — raza

Hanover is referencing what you said here: "Of course a so-called 'member' of a 'minority' group should not be protected from merely feeling uncomfortable about someone else's words," you goober.

Absolutely astonishing how fucking stupid Jordan Peterson is in this video. When asked why academics gravitate towards Socialism, Peterson responds that, "they don't get paid enough and they are resentful... adjunct professors don't have tenure, they get paid abysmally, they live in their damn cars, they teach four courses, they have no power, they make $16K - 21K annually...that's a place where plenty of resentment can be generated."

Resentment? That's his interpretation? Fucking really?

Ahhhhh nooooo I just found out Clement Rosset died earlier this year

Love the only two books of his that were translated to English: The Real and Its Double and Joyful Cruelty

No, I've never had sex outside of committed relationships. Nor did my partners for that matter, but then it's only natural that I am attracted to such people given my own views. — Agustino

So you're not offering any justification for this view of yours. Either by scientific data or personal experience. Not at all surprising given your puritan view of women.

Zed's dead baby

Have you never had casual sex Agustino?

Treats the other person as an object (or as a means to an end), and does not accord them the value they deserve (nor you the value you deserve) — Agustino

It cultivates and promotes feelings of lust and selfishness since the only possible motivation to have casual sex is egoism (ie, your own pleasure). — Agustino

Casual sex does not preclude affording your partner the sexual attention they deserve or need. Having casual sex does not necessarily mean exclusively focusing on your own sexual needs at the expense of your partner's. That's simply a difference between good sex and bad sex. A citation is also required here.

Is damaging towards your (and your partner's) possibility for emotional bonding (https://www.thetrumpet.com/7750-the-emotional-corrosion-of-casual-sex) — Agustino

You'll have to do better than citing a random religious magazine published by the Philadelphia Church of God.

The brain gets used to having multiple partners, and then a relationship is no longer as special - you become less capable of a serious relationship. — Agustino

This requires a citation. The average person has around 11-20 unique sexual partners in his or her lifetime (if memory serves), and I sincerely doubt that after merely 20 or so partners, the brain is so radically transformed and immutable so that you can't form a special sexual relationship with anybody.

It damages the loyalty and devotion that could otherwise exist between the partners through sexual bonding. — Agustino

Not everyone desires, or needs "loyalty and devotion" with a random sexual partner (in fact, it goes without saying that most people don't). And given that this doesn't exclude the ability to form "loyalty and devotion" with another sexual partner, should one wish it, I don't see an issue.

yes casual sex is always immoral. — Agustino

How?

Sex should be restricted to a committed relationship, where the end goal (of the relationship, not of the sex necessarily) is having a family and children - or at the VERY least intimacy between the two lovers. — Agustino

Why?

At 9 He Lost His Mom to Gang Violence. At 12 He Lost His Dad to Trump’s Immigration Policies.

When Brayan was 9 years old, in 2016, his mother was brutally raped and murdered in Honduras. Her body was found in a septic tank. When Brayan saw her in the coffin, she was so disfigured that he couldn’t recognize her. She had been seven months pregnant. That’s when his nightmares began, his fear of the dark. His mother’s boyfriend had abused her and was arrested in the killing, but he claimed it was a gang killing and was set free. He threatened Brayan and his father, José, so José vowed to bring Brayan to safety in the United States. The opportunity to travel there safely arrived this year.

Border Patrol officers refused to even glance at the notarized letters from lawyers making his case, José said. He was jailed for 20 days, asked to sign papers in English he did not understand and was deported to Honduras. Brayan was flown to a shelter for children in Maryland.

Brayan is now one of the more than 2,000 children — a conservative estimate — who have been separated from their families as part of the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance crackdown on undocumented immigration. On June 26, a federal district judge in San Diego ordered that those families must be reunited within 30 or fewer days — even though a Justice Department lawyer acknowledged there was no formal procedure to reunite families.

This song is about fucking on a beach

Now why is it, do you think, that Royal family members never appear as soldiers on the front line? Or any Rothschild family member for that matter (actual surname Bauer). — raza

You said a few posts ago that Buckingham Palace should have been heavily targeted in order to destroy British morale. Now you are saying that the Royal Family should have been on the front line? You don't see the conflict around those two positions?

And Jack Bauer is always on the front lines.

So first you state that Buckingham Palace wasn't bombed, presumably because of some conspiracy involving the British Monarchy, despite the fact that not only was it bombed, but Queen Elizabeth wrote about how she and her Father the King were nearly killed during one of the strikes.

The Nazis' prime targets were strategic sites such as boatyard docks, factories, etc. that were not located near Buckingham Palace. It's also important to note that the bombs used in WW2 weren't very precise. That said, Buckingham palace was directly hit around nine times.

This is a pretty dumb conspiracy.

You would make the ideal patsy due to your naivety. They would have you dressed up in a brown shirt before you know it. — raza

Na, I'm Jewish, they would have murdered me.

Did the Germans bomb Buckingham Palace during the London blitz? Such an obvious and strategic target IF one was trying to undermine British morale.

But no. — raza

Except Buckingham Palace was hit by several bombs during The Blitz

Nah. just back right out of interfering in other countries and plug the holes in the border. Taxing corporations merely causes corporations to pass that tax bill on to ordinary consumers of their businesses. — raza

The damage is clearly already done, and merely removing ourselves from interference in foreign affairs will not magically solve the humanitarian crisis in the Northern Triangle. Neither will "plugging the holes in the border" whatever the hell that's supposed to entail. Corporations should be taxed progressively regardless, and the US Government should be strong-arming them so that costs don't trickle down to consumers or the general public, but that's a long argument that's neither here nor there. Suffice it to say, if the US Government can spend trillions on a war we lost, and add over $1.4 trillion to the deficit thanks to a needless and fallacious tax cut, I think we can afford to spend on taking better care of people whose countries we helped spiral into chaos and violence.

After all, the US is only a colony of the British monarchy and their financiers such as the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and their ilk. A full independence for the US is the only hope. A 2nd revolution is required as the 1st one was eventually countered over time by the usual war bandits. — raza

Damn, you are really going full tin-foil hat aren't you?

After all, the political and corporate elites are not the ones who ultimately pay for the all of those acts. — raza

So implement a progressive tax on corporations and the elite, create clean, hospitable centers to temporarily house immigrants who are escaping the countries we fucked over (the article does state that the US Government had a hand in this), and treat them with respect, provide healthcare services, etc. rather than separate them, detain them, and further demonize them as this Swamp-filled administration is currently doing.

The US is constitutional federal republic. That is, it is not democracy at all. Some aspects of our government are democratic. It remains to find out just what folks exactly mean when they refer to "democracies." The risk is that the imprecision can make a difference. The chart is interesting, but unelucidating. There's a difference between democratic in its noun form and its adjectival form. — tim wood

A Republic is when public officials are democratically elected to represent their constituents. It is a representative democracy; a type of democracy.

This is an important article that I think @ArguingWAristotleTiff (and several others) should read, which touches upon why immigrants from Central America, in particular the Northern Triangle are immigrating to America and why deterrence policies (e.g. family separation, detaining) will not be effective.

Please name any democracies that are collapsing. — tim wood

The "robustness" of democracies exist on a spectrum. The United States today, while an imperfect democracy in myriad ways, is nevertheless stronger than the United States in the 1880s. Political scientists have shown, through a wide-set of criteria, there is a "disturbing retreat" of the "robustness" of democracies around the world. While not necessarily a "collapse", it is worrisome all the same.