Community >> View Thread

Author
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


…and says that it is the most anti-democratic institution (next to the Judiciary, of course)…

And now that your disgust is activated, it was actually Stephen Colbert who just said it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1483460191161098242?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1483460191161098242%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fcolbert-misogyny-mocking-mrs-hamburglar-kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-support


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,475



    Quote:
    …and says that it is the most anti-democratic institution (next to the Judiciary, of course)…



    Quote:
    And now that you’re disgust is activated, it was actually Stephen Colbert who just said it.



    Quote:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1483460191161098242?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1483460191161098242%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fcolbert-misogyny-mocking-mrs-hamburglar-kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-support


As such I think Elizabeth Warren’s response was more pertinent than Colbert's suggestion ….

https://youtu.be/jInu66a-Lcg






Posted with Apple iPhone
The Mandarin


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,017


I've thought the Senate should be abolished for many years. So when I saw your post, my first thought was, "huh, a Trump supporter wants something good. Well, I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day." I was disappointed when it turned out to not be true.

The Senate is an abomination rooted in the days when the states couldn't decide whether to be a confederacy or a republic, and so created a clunky, undemocratic, compromise design. The Senate should have been abolished right after the Civil War, when the issue was supposedly settled once and for all in favor of a republic. America had a huge chance to fix its design problems, but it was squandered. They settled for just ending slavery and made no effort to fix a single problem passed that.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 96.0 on Windows 10
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


It perfectly matches my scientific prediction: democrats are unethical and this will continue to be observable in nature.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    It perfectly matches my scientific prediction: democrats are unethical and this will continue to be observable in nature.


First of all, that is not a scientific prediction. When predictions are scientific, the scientific method is used

You don't seem to be offering any evidence that you did that.


Also, while I don't agree with getting rid of the Senate, wanting to change how the government works is not inherently unethical.

From Webster's English Dictionary, the primary definition of ethics:

A set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values.


The existence of the Senate is neither moral or immoral, it simply is, so as long as a desire to get rid of the Senate is consistent, there is nothing unethical about the statement.

If they disagree with you and I, and believe the Senate does more harm than good, and hold that position no matter what, they are sticking to their ethical base.

The Constitution can be changed, there is even a word for it... amending. This is an option because being in The Constitution does not automatically make it ethical, only legal. The point is that you can go back and reevaluate, and see what society believes over time. This is where the concept of the "living document" applies.

All you really did was show that you don't know what the word ethics means or what a makes a theory scientific.

This is the second time on this board I have agreed with you on the basic premise, but could not help but scratch my head at how you clearly are not based on principle... or ethics... but hate for the other side. IN a manner more in line with a sports team, than a real contest of ideas for how the society should be run.

By the way, save yourself some time, and don't bother responding. The fact that 2/3 of your post were things you did not understand (I do believe it matches what you thought) tells me that reading it would not be worth my time.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 96.0 on Windows 10
Incriptus


Location: Incriptus
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,735


The great compromise of a House and a Senate was pretty much used to get the colonies to be "united" states in the first place. Now that the Civil War has answered the question of succession, it's not irrational to question the need for the Senate.

One of [but far from the only] reason why one would settle on dual sovereignty of the states vs federal government at the time was the limits on communication technology.

With the ever expanding powers of the Federal Government the power/rights of the State [and the people] have inevitably contracted, perhaps to the point where the State is meaningless anyways.

Debates about States rights are now practically a fringe position, and anyone who is not fascinated by politics likely is unaware in this first place. Heck with the number of people who only vote in presidential elections [and don't even vote down card] perhaps abolishing the very concept of State's right isn't off the table.

---

Now that I've played devil's advocate for a moment I am a big Proponent of States rights and I prefer the 50(+) laboratory approach. I'd like the conversation to be about abolishing Federal departments that are not explicitly on the list of enumerated powers set out by the constitution.

Come to think of it maybe we should reinstate the senate of the founders and repeal the 17th amendment ...




Only Drax the Legend can quote Drax the Legend. NT · Drax the Legend
Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.71 on Windows 10
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


Scientific Method:

1. Make an observation. - Democrats are unethical.
2. Ask a question. - Is this behavior repeatable?
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. - They are unethical, and if I post a worrisome anti-government position, they will endorse it.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. - They will endorse the worrisome anti-government position.
5. Test the prediction. - Post the worrisome anti-government position online and see what they say.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. - Result: They sided with the worrisome anti-government position. This will continue to be observed in nature.

By the way, I thought you preferred to be private. What happened?


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
JS


Member Since: Thu Oct 29, 2009


You have not proven that endorsing this so-called "worrisome anti-government position" was unethical, though.

Look, Colbert is a comedian. He was simply performing comedy. That's what he does. Of course nothing was going to come of it. It would take a Constitutional amendment to actually abolish the Senate, and the Senate would have to pass it with a 2/3 vote. That's sure not happening anytime soon. So how can this position be called unethical?

Is it simply that any anti-government statement is unethical, simply because it is anti-government? What other positions could be called unethical, then? Would it not be unethical to encourage a group of people to storm the Capitol building and violently attack members of Congress? That would be about as anti-government as it gets.

Oh, wait, it was a Republican ex-President that did that.

Is it anti-government to suggest that access to voting should be restricted from certain demographics in order to give one party an unfair advantage in elections? That would be unethical, then, wouldn't it?

But wait, that's the Republicans' position.

Is it anti-government to suggest that the results of an election should be overturned if it doesn't go your way? That would be unethical, then.

Oh wait, that's the Republicans' position.


Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.71 on Windows 10
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021



    Quote:
    You have not proven that endorsing this so-called "worrisome anti-government position" was unethical, though.

    Look, Colbert is a comedian.


You proved it again.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


This is a whole lot of nothing.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.98 on Linux
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.98 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


… how Lia Thomas is really a female, and provide a scientific explanation on how s/he doesn’t have an unfair advantage.

https://www.thedp.com/article/2021/12/lia-thomas-penn-quakers-swimming-ivy-league-transgender


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    The great compromise of a House and a Senate was pretty much used to get the colonies to be "united" states in the first place. Now that the Civil War has answered the question of succession, it's not irrational to question the need for the Senate.



    Quote:
    One of [but far from the only] reason why one would settle on dual sovereignty of the states vs federal government at the time was the limits on communication technology.



    Quote:
    With the ever expanding powers of the Federal Government the power/rights of the State [and the people] have inevitably contracted, perhaps to the point where the State is meaningless anyways.



    Quote:
    Debates about States rights are now practically a fringe position, and anyone who is not fascinated by politics likely is unaware in this first place. Heck with the number of people who only vote in presidential elections [and don't even vote down card] perhaps abolishing the very concept of State's right isn't off the table.



    Quote:
    ---



    Quote:
    Now that I've played devil's advocate for a moment I am a big Proponent of States rights and I prefer the 50(+) laboratory approach. I'd like the conversation to be about abolishing Federal departments that are not explicitly on the list of enumerated powers set out by the constitution.


I am always skeptical of this myself. It sounds good in principle, like most things, but in reality you have states following party and ideological trends and given that makeup if something does not work or needs modification it is rarely if ever done. So it is a failure of an experiment in terms of learning and changing.

I honestly am of the mind that some things do require a blanket approach as perhaps a baseline requirement for some things but states can build on and others are a bit more variable in terms of how much input if any the federal government or state governments should have on the issue.


    Quote:
    Come to think of it maybe we should reinstate the senate of the founders and repeal the 17th amendment ...


This one I am totally against given the current make up of elections in states. If there was more balance in politics than I may be more open but state legislatures are often even more nutty IMO.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.99 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,461


Not being glib, I just don't understand what connection you're making?


cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.82 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


looks more like you just posting for reasons to try and get a rise than anything.

I was referring to your set up in the previous post. I am sure it was meant tongue in cheek but it is pretty poor reasoning and set up for a scientific question.

You can hate the Dems and liberals all you want to, it is just incredibly forced to come in with your conclusion and then try to back fill with evidence that supports it and claim it is unbiased observation as opposed to opinion reinforcement.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.99 on Windows 10
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


Laff. Stop bluffing. Explain how it was poorly set up. Educate me.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
Olorin


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


1) Your set up is very hard to measure and ill-defined. You are defining "unethical" as the desire to abolish the Senate? Without questioning why that would be unethical? Furthermore, some folks may want to abolish the Senate, but then replace it with something they think is better for society. So...how do you differentiate between Democrats who are anti-Senate and Democrats who are for changing the Senate? If you said "democrats don't support democracy", then came up with a test, that would be easier to measure.

2) You didn't have a control group. Very beneficial for instances like this. What if I measured anti-democratic tendencies in the whole population, and analyzed and measured responses across the political spectrum. Would Republicans also display similar behavior/tendencies? You should sample the whole population, not just Democrats. Otherwise you introduce bias.

3) You also need a way to attribute one's political affiliations to their responses. And make sure there aren't other factors influencing particular responses. Correlation does not equal causation. Isolate the political affiliation and see if it's a factor.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 96.0 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


in any way supports what you were going on about having an scientifically informed opinion on democrats?

I would not waste my time on someone that does not actually care on learning something and has made up their mind a long time ago.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software