Is the “insulted American” in the room with us now?

It’s more than just “a man within range of vision”. Obviously we don’t have the full story here, but even in the text, there are specific behaviors that would, arguably, make a reasonable person suspect they were in imminent danger. Depending on the state, that is enough to trigger self-defense definition.

They had legitimate reason to believe they were in danger. Not assault at all.

I understand what they mean. I think this comes down to an exercise in semantics, and you are pushing the “country = home” analogy too literally.

Feelings of love and pride don’t need a pure rational root cause. They can exist in a more abstract sense, like in the case of “loving your home”. You can take pride/love in the work you do to clean your home, especially when realizing others will be living in it as well. I can “love” the earth, and want to take care of and respect it.

Love can be expressed in many different forms. I can both love my significant other and also love my parents. I think you can then extend this argument to loving something abstract, like earth, or your country, with a sort of rational basis being that I love my fellow humans and want to reduce suffering.

My point being that pride in one’s country is an artificial thing which you’ve been pushed into having from the outside and as such is a prime vector to manipulate you (and all it takes is to listen to politicians harp about the greatness of one’s country to see that it is indeed being used for that by some), not something natural like pride for you and those close to you and their deeds.

I don’t quite follow you here. To me, there is a difference between having love or pride in one’s country versus being nationalist. To me, the latter involves critical analysis and honesty about flaws, and working to fix those flaws. Nationalism on the other hand would be amount to uncritically supporting everything the country (or politician/government) does, which is I think what you are describing?

Also, how do you define what is “natural” vs “unnatural” pride?

I honestly think most people would highly benefit from reading A Workbook for Arguments: A Complete Course in Critical Thinking

The amount of cognitive dissonance and logical fallacy among these chains of reasoning and “arguments” (and I am using the word argument very generously here) is astounding.

I don’t care about what anyone says about anything anymore. Means almost nothing to me.

Past voting history (both party and candidates), bills drafted and passed while in office for previous roles, if (and where) they have money invested to analyze conflicts of interest, and other data about the candidates.

Use this information to extrapolate what each party’s administration will do in office if elected.

Oh for fucks sake

Well said

Love that phrase…”love this country”.

What does it even mean? The citizens? The flag? The physical land and soil that encompasses “this country”? Love the government? If so, what about the government do you love? The governments policies? Laws? The constitution? The actual government employees? Which ones? The president? A combination? How is the combination divided?

Also, depending on the answer to the above, why? Because you were born here? You think it’s better than other countries? How are you defining “better”?

Stupid phrase imo.

I mean I think it’s the adults responsibility to make due diligent efforts to check, but if the minor continues to lie, is it really on the adult anymore? Unless there were glaring red flags that a reasonable person could suspect, I don’t believe the adult can be held responsible.

I have no idea how the law handles this, but from my understanding, “mens rea” (guilty mind) is required to prove criminal wrongdoing. There would be no “mens rea” proof here since the adult had to have willful intent to commit a crime.

I’m a fence ded

$10 for literally an entire fucking box of razors that will last me years. Can’t even remember the last time I’ve paid for a blade.

Pretty much. I see it basically as our masters arguing over the best way to rule the peasants. Do we give them some crumbs so that they don’t outright revolt? Or do we just go full steam ahead with exploitation with full on force and violence?

Self-diagnosed centrist: We need to compromise here. It’s the only way we’ll actually get things accomplished in politics. Kill half, and imprison the other half.

Self-proclaimed “realist”: They both suck equally as much

Political “philosopher”: Society needs to stop seeing everything in black and white. There’s nuance in genocide versus life imprisonment.

Undecided voter: I’m just not convinced yet for either. I see the merits of both. I need to hear both candidates’ policies in more detail before making a decision.

Old people: As long as my taxes don’t go up, I don’t give a shit what they do.

False dichotomy. Doesn’t have to be one or the other. It can be “more” under one party than with another.

How is it that SO MANY people literally can’t see past a false dichotomy logical fallacy? I swear every other fucking comment is like “Yuhh WELL it wouhda been the same under the LIBS” like some sort of “gotcha”.

The amount of people that desperately need a course in basic informal logic is beyond astounding.

Appreciate you clarifying. I have a better understanding of your views than I did before.

We seem to disagree on what the use of “force” constitutes exactly. In my opinion, having someone have to choose between what most would regard as basic amenities or working as cheap labor for some large conglomerate is considered force.

But, that’s my opinion. And you’re entitled to yours. I’m glad you could explain your position more clearly so that I could understand opposing viewpoints.

You’re making the following statements, lmk if this is inaccurate:

-Involuntary servitude is not considered slavery, but rather a punishment.

-Involuntary servitude is OK as long as it’s used on prisoners (those who have been convicted of crimes).

Inference made: Constitutional protections and rights do NOT apply to those going against the rule of law.

Questions for you:

-If involuntary servitude isn’t considered slavery, then what would you consider slavery to be?

-Is this a form of punishment that helps to reform and correct those deemed currently unsuitable for society (without going into the meaninglessness of Orwellian naming conventions, they are called the “Department of Corrections”, aren’t they?)

-Do you think the rule of law always corresponds with ethical standards?

-I always like to ask myself the following: Who stands to benefit from allowing slaver- I mean, “involuntary servitude” to continue to be allowed? Who stands to benefit from all this cheap labor?

I’m curious as to your answers here.

I’m American. I’m so disappointed in my fellow Americans. And I’d wager around half of us feel similarly disgusted by these results.

Just know not all of us voted for this fascist. I have been trying to organize more and get my friends to organize against this. Clearly civil disobedience is needed, so I think organizing and donating to organizations that support anti-fascism would help.

Ah yes, the ol’ “if I don’t know something, then it MUST be X” argument.

Substitute X for whatever ya like! Demons, ghouls, demon ghouls…the possibilities are endless!

Tf is this shit