On capital punishment I guess I am somewhat from the Canadian POV. IMO the defense for a Death sentence shouldn't lie in 'punishment' but in public protection against re-offending. If crimes are sufficiently egregious I think you can make the argument that the rights of the convicted are outweighed by the need to protect society given society may have reasonable cause for mistrust of the future actions of someone who's already committed something particularly heinous.

Careful @newtboy, you're sounding a bit like a conservative on this one from the Canadian POV.

A terrorist that shot 12 people in a mosque, killing 6 was sentenced under new Conservative law that allowed sentences like murder to be applied consecutively. More details in the link below, but our liberal dominated Supreme Court ruled the 40 years without a parole chance was "cruel and unusual".

So our gov. will be giving them a chance at parole in 2039.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-canada-bissonnette-mosque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847

Litmus test for ya @bobknight33,

Ashley Babbitt was the white girl shot on Jan. 6 trying to illegally force her way deeper into the capital. Was her shooting justified as you claim in this video? She was certainly following your advice on how to interact with cops even less than the guy in the video...

I hate to say it, but I'm sure you are right.

If I have to prophesy on the future, the MAGA crowd will someday need to morph and abandon Trump for all his flaws and failings. And come that day, Trump will either by martyr, or equally likely listed off as just another part of the system. The Clintons at his wedding will be moved from a red herring into a central piece of evidence in their narrative.

And we should be worrying more about who that equally morally vile but less incompetent future figurehead could be.

Good news Bob, in something of an anomaly, you've got an opportunity to read the truth about this incident on foxnews(I know, it's opposite day in the world):

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-mar-a-lago-search-justified

Link is above, but choice quote from FOX themselves follows:


If this were a mere issue of simply recovering unclassified presidential records, though, there likely never would have been a criminal element to this matter. But buried into those boxes were countless properly marked classified documents. Those documents lacked any markings indicating that Trump had ever declassified them. No actual substantiated evidence indicates Mr. Trump ever declassified them. No one viewing those records would have any reason to view them as anything other than properly classified documents.

The government tried to recover the documents peacefully and quietly. They spent one year discussing the matter with Trump’s staff, and 15 boxes were sent back to NARA in February.

After identifying more missing records, the government returned in June with a subpoena and found more boxes of records that should have been returned. Both times, properly marked classified documents – up to and including documents marked as Top Secret and requiring Sensitive Compartmented Information access eligibility – were located within the boxes.

A Trump lawyer swore out an affidavit promising there were no more documents. The government gathered evidence that the Trump lawyer was not being truthful, and on August 8, 2022, a court-authorized search warrant was executed that, sure enough, located several more classified documents.

That is not an abuse of law enforcement processes. That is how the law works.


Now I'm going to repeat the last statement there for emphasis, but even FOX stated it: That is not an abuse of law enforcement processes. That is how the law works.

This is one of those cons that's so bad it actually helps it's own spread.

His entire premise depends on folks buying in that 'Science" was duped into a bad 'definition' for the origins of oil at some committee meeting. You have to accept that for the next 100 years, the entire scientific community was powerlessly bound by this committee decision.

The reason that's so effective is the same as the scam emails rife with typos and bad grammar. He immediately is limiting his audience after that point to folks who didn't nope out already at that point. Targeted marketing at any audience vulnerable to whatever snake oil pitch he's ultimately selling.

@newtboy
"I meant in a practical and ethical sense it would have made more sense for them to take part of Germany as actual reparations."
Isn't this a red herring, irrelevant point though unless they were given part of Palestine as 'reparations'? If we're gonna fix history with wishes lets go further and erase WW2.

"When they, as a people, invade a recently sovereign land and take it by force..."
It's your characterization here that you seem to just be asserting as true, but it's the heart of where we see it differently.

Are you objecting to the Jewish refugees illegally taking refuge alongside Jewish people already in Palestine in the 30s and early 40s? Your usage of the word 'invade' seems to suggest that.

Do you think I'm misrepresenting things as well when I pointed out it was the Arab states that declared war, immediately upon Israel embracing a two state solution? And let's be clear, it was a two state solution with borders essentially mirroring the existing land occupied by both Jewish and Arab peoples currently in Palestine at the time.

You declare it was taken by force, but the history as I know it has by far the largest use of force was 100% defensive after the declaration of war by all neighboring Arab states.

What are you seeing so differently at that point of history?

@newtboy,

And it’s in the origins that I think our disagreement lies. It’s convenient for both the Arab and western worlds to agree that Israel owes it’s existence as a state to Western powers gifting palestine to them as ‘reparations’. That it’s convenient for both parties though is about as far as the truth of it really goes.

As a realist, I don’t see anything going much differently if the west had opposed Jewish settlement in Palestine at the time. The Jewish people were fleeing the anticipated holocaust. In the aftermath of the actual holocaust, it was their own actions of settling in Palestine, and defending themselves once there that made them a state. Nobody gave it to them, they fought and bled for it themselves.

The closest interference of Britain came in trying to wash their hands of Palestine and declaring a 2 state solution, with borders drawn around the territory in Palestine currently occupied by Jewish and Arab populations. I still hold the key to the ongoing problems are not Israel’s declaration of independence accepting that 2 state solution, but instead the entire arab world’s declaration of war on them and intention to drive them “into the sea”. A declaration like that 3 years after the holocaust, towards a population made up largely of holocaust survivors deserves condemnation. I an’t side with the notion that in that conflict, and the immigration leasing up to it, that the European Jewish refugees are the bad guys and aggressors…

@newtboy,

There's a danger here of having an actual nuanced discussion on Israel/Palestine happening here if we aren't careful...

I agree with your point of difference on illegal immigrants in the US largely not having a plan for 'independence' in their back pocket. The soft equivalence that the right wingers would point to though would be immigrant settling into small area such that they can setup a virtual community without ever needing to learn local languages and pushing hard to keep their 'own' values and way of life. I don't agree with the "Learn English" rednecks or the ones shouting how folks need to act American, but there is at least a soft parallel. virtually the only thing South Park has ever been censored on was depicting the prophet, and that 100% read as fear of violent retaliation, which isn't nothing.

I also think you hit the bigger point on how broken systems of immigration are. Particularly when domestic politics and the situation for legal immigration to refugees is grossly inadequate. I think America today though is just a much more mild example of it than the 30/40s in Palestine. For all the complaints one can level at Zionism, it's very hard to condemn them for encouraging mass emigration out of Europe. It's also clear that waiting on legal immigration routes out wasn't going to get people out fast enough. Thus I really look carefully at any anti-zionist position that includes condemning jewish 'illegal' immigration at the time. It treads dangerously close to saying they should have accepted the alternative, which was by and large remaining in Europe...

@newtboy,

I have to ask your stance on illegal aliens within the USA today in that case, since you seem to use it as a derogative against 1930/40s Jewish refugees fleeing Europe for Palestine...

Feels to me the confederate flag wavers stance on illegal immigrants in the US parallels the picture you're painting of 1930s/40s Palestinian immigration closer than you maybe like to admit.

Let me fix that for ya:
"The level of education and discernment of the average HUMAN in general is really depressing."

Israel and Palestine is particularly messy though, as so much power(money, violence and otherwise) is leveraged from both sides to ensure people choose a side, and choose it with no compromises allowed, purely villainizing the other and vindicating the 'right' team.

Anti-Zionism isn't anti-semitism, as you pointed out. Yet, overwhelmingly anti-zionism is also used as a code word for denying Israel's right to exist, equivalent to confederate flag marchers claiming they haven't any racist intentions...

@newtboy,

Per my very first sentence in thread, I also oppose gov using this as a wedge issue to rally their base.

Meaning, I 100% am in agreement that nobody(gov or otherwise) should be banning trans kids(and adults) from anything, competitive sports included.

I did point out a single biological fact:
-Whether a person is born with XX or XY chromosomes has a significant impact on development that impacts performance in sports.

You jump all over that observation though, like raising it is hateful, denying peoples right to exist, and on. It is not.

And your observation that the performance advantages aren’t 100% of the time favouring XY folks is the red herring. Of course there are areas were the difference is an advantage, others were it’s neutral, and yet others a disadvantage. In a large population you also always have the possibility of individuals overcoming those odds.

Pointing to those facts though like they mean specific advantages don’t exist is the red herring.

In addition to that one fact, I also proposed applying the same standards for fairness in competition equally to everyone.

And it’s on this point I am automatically decried as hateful, evil and maliciously acting against people’s right to exist….

If your only looking for a villain to demonize there’s no point attempting further discussion.

@newtboy,

Last try to get anything resembling a straight answer.

If we pick specifically the 100m race as an event: If the olympics had but a single open category to all sex and genders, do you expect to see biologically female competitors ever making it into qualifying and competition?

@newtboy,

On average you can agree…

I never said anything against any given pro/competitive female athlete probably beating out plenty of biologically male folks.

I was only pointing to advantages between equally gifted/talented and trained people.

To that point, can you agree that most standing olympic records as currently separated into mens and womens records, indicate that the historical separation based on XX and XY certainly appears to show an advantage. Would you be able to agree following from that, the existence of distinct mens and womens records is because without it, women would be “unfairly” left almost entirely unrepresented in every sprint distance, every lifting record and most other records.

For instance, the Olympic qualifying standard for the mens 100m was 10.05s, while the standing Olympic womens record time for 100m is 10.49s. AKA in absence of a separate competition for biologically female athletes, even the standing Olympic record holding female wouldn’t pass the bar to qualify to compete in the Olympics.

That is the advantage I am stating exists, and matters and I am asking if you acknowledge that distinction existing as a result of biology or not?

@newtboy

“What genitalia you have has no bearing on your performance in sports”

I’m gonna try once to understand this. Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?

If our disagreement is that fundamental there isn’t much sense to further discussion as we are viewing two entirely disjointed versions of reality.