So guys, what's it like living in a boring echo chamber nowadays?

[Idolater]

If you're opposed to welfare then by association - in any realistic sense - you're tolerating a rise in poverty and homelessness among other things.

No. There's an obesity problem among the poorest Americans rn. We're well beyond the risk of increasing poverty /impoverishment and homelessness, we don't know how far beyond rn, but we are well beyond that risk. As such welfare is more of the proverbial hammock rather than a safety net. So we're OK being against welfare and abortion, we can do that with a clear conscience.

For plenty, it's the only available lifeline to try and make ends meet.

Obesity epidemic does not equal barely making ends meet.

Not sure where you're getting the notion that the poor are overfed exactly, cite? It's all well and good declaring that Christians are supposed to feed the hungry and in itself is commendable, but that's not going to reach many who need it.

Point is, where are the hungry, in a country of fatties? They don't exist. I'm not saying stop feeding the poor. I'm saying they have quite enough food, more than they need, obv, so it's OK to morally favor the reducing of our welfarism.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You mean like the people in the video I posted that you get your "news" from?

Well of course not. I know you're not the brightest crayon in the box Nick but c;mon...

 

[Arthur Brain]

You besmirch yourself with such words. I spelled out the part explicitly where she was unwilling to discuss restrictions on abortions for convenience until I agreed that the state must support the baby throughout. Abortion means the killing of a baby. Please point out where I went wrong in the interpretation, if you think I did, but until then, merely rereading her post and reasserting your conclusion does not address my contention.

I do no such thing. You went wrong in your inference of something that simply wasn't there and worse, you've doubled down on it since. In no way, shape or form was Anna arguing as you suggest and if you even had a passing familiarity with her views you'd know she never has or would. The fault is yours and Anna can address you if and when she has the time or sees fit.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No. There's an obesity problem among the poorest Americans rn. We're well beyond the risk of increasing poverty /impoverishment and homelessness, we don't know how far beyond rn, but we are well beyond that risk. As such welfare is more of the proverbial hammock rather than a safety net. So we're OK being against welfare and abortion, we can do that with a clear conscience.



Obesity epidemic does not equal barely making ends meet.



Point is, where are the hungry, in a country of fatties? They don't exist. I'm not saying stop feeding the poor. I'm saying they have quite enough food, more than they need, obv, so it's OK to morally favor the reducing of our welfarism.

There's an obesity problem in America full stop and I'm waiting for a cite that supports it being prevalent among the poor. Poor people and the homeless in any country do not have 'quite enough food' for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

 

[Derf]

I do no such thing. You went wrong in your inference of something that simply wasn't there and worse, you've doubled down on it since. In no way, shape or form was Anna arguing as you suggest and if you even had a passing familiarity with her views you'd know she never has or would. The fault is yours and Anna can address you if and when she has the time or sees fit.

I wasn't reading her views, but her post. You apparently think her post is not representative of her views, which is fine, and hopefully true, but she's intelligent enough to tell me that--she doesn't need you to interpret her views. So why do you do it? You must think she's an imbecile, like you accuse so many of being.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I wasn't reading her views, but her post. You apparently think her post is not representative of her views, which is fine, and hopefully true, but she's intelligent enough to tell me that--she doesn't need you to interpret her views. So why do you do it? You must think she's an imbecile, like you accuse so many of being.

Go back to post 52, 53 and 54 Derf. You quoted me to begin with and claimed anna was arguing something she wasn't and that I, by taking her side also was by association. Flat out wrong. I've already told you that anna can address this directly to you but you decided to keep flogging a dead hose instead. Of course anna doesn't need me to interpret her views and she's far, far from an imbecile.

 

[Idolater]

There's an obesity problem in America full stop and I'm waiting for a cite that supports it being prevalent among the poor. Poor people and the homeless in any country do not have 'quite enough food' for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

Obesity and poverty don’t always go together

Obesity in the U.S. varies considerably by gender, race, ethnicity, income and educational level, but not necessarily how you might expect.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[JudgeRightly]

There's an obesity problem in America full stop and I'm waiting for a cite that supports it being prevalent among the poor. Poor people and the homeless in any country do not have 'quite enough food' for reasons that should be blatantly obvious.

When your nation's poorest are among the wealthiest people in the world, obesity is very possible for the poor, because "poor" is a relative term. These links show that they're wealthier than most of the world:

The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most European Nations

The US is so economically exceptional that the poorest 20 percent of Americans are richer than many of the world’s most affluent nations.

fee.org

https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-summer/where-do-the-poorest-americans-stand-in-the-income-distribution-among-all-people-ever-born/

https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/

1. Trends in income and wealth inequality

Barely 10 years past the end of the Great Recession in 2009, the U.S. economy is doing well on several fronts. The labor market is on a job-creating

www.pewresearch.org

And these links show that obesity is a problem for them:

Poverty and Obesity in the U.S - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Obesity and poverty: Link, statistics and more

Studies suggest obesity is linked to poverty. A potential factor is the greater affordability of less nutritional and higher calorie foods. Learn more.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Obesity and poverty don’t always go together

Obesity in the U.S. varies considerably by gender, race, ethnicity, income and educational level, but not necessarily how you might expect.

www.pewresearch.org

The Link Between Childhood Obesity and Poverty | Feed the Children

Discover the hidden link between childhood obesity and poverty in affluent countries. Explore the surprising factors that contribute to this complex issue, from food deserts to lack of safe play spaces, and learn how you can be part of the solution for a healthier, happier future for all families.

www.feedthechildren.org

 

[annabenedetti]

So if you don't agree with murder, the pope says it's ok to vote for a candidate that openly supports and promotes murder? And how is that supposed to bring about the thing you are hoping to achieve? What is it you are/were hoping to achieve by voting for democrats?

I explained the principle of double effect for you wrt abortion and voting for a pro-choice candidate. Perhaps unlike you, I'm not a single issue voter. As long as you understand the principle of double effect, then my job is done. Explaining to you my entire voting process isn't my job.

Glad you got it off your chest then.

I'm glad you realized your misunderstanding.

So, because a state doesn't "support" an unwed mother, we should allow her to kill her baby?

So, are you in the habit of deliberate misinterpretation, or only accidental misinterpretation?

You have if you supported democrats who support and encourage abortion, which is the whole party, since it's part of the party platform.

Not my family, as you said.

Not my family. So, no, not in a glass house.

It's good to have a pro-life group give you a clearer picture of how abortion cuts across demographic lines. There's a tendency for right-wingers to believe only non-Christian, non-conservative women obtain abortions, thus setting their right-wing selves on a pedestal of righteousness they don't deserve.

Surely that's the only purpose for being on a forum: to either tell somebody something they didn't know, or be told by someone something you didn't already know.

Sounds like you've negated any reason for being here. I'm not saying you should leave, but you should be honest with yourself--something Democrats and many Republicans don't do very well.

Surely you wouldn't fall for such a false dilemma.

There are times (and I decide when those times are) that I'll leave someone to do their own research. This is one of those times, since I think you already are well aware of what Dominionism is.

And now that you've pontificated on my reasons for being here (I have to say you made me chuckle) I'm even more comfortable with leaving you to do your own research here and there. I'll have a discussion with someone who gives me a reason to keep the discussion going. If not - I'm not wasting my time. The ball's in your court, you can continue in good faith or find ways to make yourself feel superior and end up talking to yourself. Up to you.

 

[annabenedetti]

I do no such thing. You went wrong in your inference of something that simply wasn't there and worse, you've doubled down on it since. In no way, shape or form was Anna arguing as you suggest and if you even had a passing familiarity with her views you'd know she never has or would. The fault is yours and Anna can address you if and when she has the time or sees fit.

"Besmirched!" Are we doing Hamlet now?!

 

[Derf]

I explained the principle of double effect for you wrt abortion and voting for a pro-choice candidate. Perhaps unlike you, I'm not a single issue voter. As long as you understand the principle of double effect, then my job is done. Explaining to you my entire voting process isn't my job.

No, nor very likely to persuade any but those who already favor abortions.

I'm glad you realized your misunderstanding.



So, are you in the habit of deliberate misinterpretation, or only accidental misinterpretation?



Not my family, as you said.



It's good to have a pro-life group give you a clearer picture of how abortion cuts across demographic lines. There's a tendency for right-wingers to believe only non-Christian, non-conservative women obtain abortions, thus setting their right-wing selves on a pedestal of righteousness they don't deserve.

I'm not at all clear on why having people on either side of the political spectrum that do something horrendous, not to mention something so opposed to God's moral law, while still in keeping with perverted societal laws and norms justifies the horrendous act. And if it doesn't, as I maintain, why is it part of the conversation?

Can we not then also kill a born child for convenience sake, perhaps even because the state is unwilling to care for the child? Isn't that even an example of caring for the child...to keep his mother from killing him?

Surely you wouldn't fall for such a false dilemma.

No, that's why I questioned you about it.

There are times (and I decide when those times are) that I'll leave someone to do their own research. This is one of those times, since I think you already are well aware of what Dominionism is.

I don't. Nor do I understand why it is relevant.

And now that you've pontificated on my reasons for being here (I have to say you made me chuckle) I'm even more comfortable with leaving you to do your own research here and there. I'll have a discussion with someone who gives me a reason to keep the discussion going. If not - I'm not wasting my time. The ball's in your court, you can continue in good faith or find ways to make yourself feel superior and up talking to yourself. Up to you.

Of course that's your prerogative. But it doesn't surprise me that someone who had little in the way of logic or morality to back up her argument would stop trying so quickly.

 

[annabenedetti]

I'm not at all clear on why having people on either side of the political spectrum that do something horrendous, not to mention something so opposed to God's moral law, while still in keeping with perverted societal laws and norms justifies the horrendous act. And if it doesn't, as I maintain, why is it part of the conversation?

Can we not then also kill a born child for convenience sake, perhaps even because the state is unwilling to care for the child? Isn't that even an example of caring for the child...to keep his mother from killing him?

No, that's why I questioned you about it.

I don't vote to advance abortion. I vote to keep a madman (and his minions) out of office. I was successful in 2020, but not in 2024.

I don't. Nor do I understand why it is relevant.

What's preventing you from looking it up? Don't you do that on a regular basis, on any number of ideas, when you'd like to know more?

Of course that's your prerogative. But it doesn't surprise me that someone who had little in the way of logic or morality to back up her argument would stop trying so quickly.

Of course. And if all you have is adhoms, then you're in danger of not having an argument. If you want to avoid a challenge to your ideas, feel free to not post to me, and I'll return the favor.

 

[Derf]

I don't vote to advance abortion. I vote to keep a madman (and his minions) out of office. I was successful in 2020,

How do you know? Did you vote for the autopen?

but not in 2024.



What's preventing you from looking it up? Don't you do that on a regular basis, on any number of ideas, when you'd like to know more?

You're the one that thinks it's relevant. Just having a definition is inadequate. Please share why it matters when you define it. I looked up the other term, "principle of double effect", and you didn't use it the way it was explained in the definition(s) I found. It was hardly an excuse for championing those who have no use for God's morals.

Of course. And if all you have is adhoms, then you're in danger of not having an argument. If you want to avoid a challenge to your ideas, feel free to not post to me, and I'll return the favor.

If all you read was adhoms, I don't think i need an argument. But I'm interested in challenges to my ideas. Maybe you will propose some?

 

[annabenedetti]

How do you know? Did you vote for the autopen?

What a silly question.

You're the one that thinks it's relevant. Just having a definition is inadequate. Please share why it matters when you define it. I looked up the other term, "principle of double effect", and you didn't use it the way it was explained in the definition(s) I found. It was hardly an excuse for championing those who have no use for God's morals.

If all you read was adhoms, I don't think i need an argument. But I'm interested in challenges to my ideas. Maybe you will propose some?

I stated it clearly. Here it is again:


"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

--Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict


Please share how you disagree with the Pope's interpretation above. You'll need to bring an argument. Remember, you posted to me first; I was actually posting to @Ps82 at the time, so if you actually want a discussion, or are genuinely interested in another viewpoint no matter what you think of it, then maybe drop the posturing.

 

[Ps82]

I know you mean well, I just think you're unaware that when you make sure that all your news sources agree with you, it's all but impossible to recognize propaganda for what it is. I'm well aware we're in disagreement, but I'm not trying to change your mind. Just maybe be a citizen following your head as much as your heart, and allow your head a chance to hear better information.

I get your point ... I do try to listen to liberal media at times, but what I do hear is just nauseating. I agree that many talking heads speak too soon trying to be the first to report and seeing events through their personal opinions no matter whether it is the right or left. For instance, the recent shooting at the Catholic church. I'm gradually hearing more info and wondering what the final truth will be. I've heard: Robert/Robin was unhappy about his transformation. His mother worked there. He had attended school (I think) there. Seems there may have been supporters of his issues at some point. He was shooting through stained glass windows, which from my experience do not open to shoot through. He could not see the children inside ... Well, there is still a lot I don't know; so, I'm trying to wait. I think many average conservatives are begging for transparency and more info to be exposed in a lot of issues is because they don't trust government nor the media. I think we are going through a healthy time for our nation. But being sick in the hospital sure feels bad.

 

[Derf]

What a silly question.

Not at all. You voted for someone who was incapable of finishing his term and who had somebodies operating with his authority, but without his knowledge. How do you know they weren't mad?

I stated it clearly. Here it is again:


"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

--Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict


Please share how you disagree with the Pope's interpretation above. You'll need to bring an argument.

Your reason is as follows:

I don't vote to advance abortion. I vote to keep a madman (and his minions) out of office. I was successful in 2020,

See above.

but not in 2024.

How many other madmen have you voted to keep out of office, say, prior to 2016. Is it possible your definition of "mad" is tailored to the occasion?

Remember, you posted to me first; I was actually posting to @Ps82 at the time,

It is a forum.

so if you actually want a discussion, or are genuinely interested in another viewpoint no matter what you think of it,

I may at times be interested in another viewpoint, while at other times I'm interested in promoting my own in the face of poorly argued viewpoints.

then maybe drop the posturing.

You posture your way, and I'll posture mine.

But I do appreciate that you have continued the conversation thus far.

 

[annabenedetti]

I get your point ... I do try to listen to liberal media at times, but what I do hear is just nauseating. I agree that many talking heads speak too soon trying to be the first to report and seeing events through their personal opinions no matter whether it is the right or left. For instance, the recent shooting at the Catholic church. I'm gradually hearing more info and wondering what the final truth will be. I've heard: Robert/Robin was unhappy about his transformation. His mother worked there. He had attended school (I think) there. Seems there may have been supporters of his issues at some point. He was shooting through stained glass windows, which from my experience do not open to shoot through. He could not see the children inside ... Well, there is still a lot I don't know; so, I'm trying to wait. I think many average conservatives are begging for transparency and more info to be exposed in a lot of issues is because they don't trust government nor the media. I think we are going through a healthy time for our nation. But being sick in the hospital sure feels bad.

It's always a good idea after a breaking tragedy not to believe or amplify the first thing you see or hear. There will be a lot of misinformation and speculation flying around. Social media can be so bad with this - misidentifying suspects, victims, sequence of events, etc. Good for you for waiting and evaluating.

 

[annabenedetti]

Not at all. You voted for someone who was incapable of finishing his term and who had somebodies operating with his authority, but without his knowledge. How do you know they weren't mad?

In 2020, my vote helped keep Trump out of office. Mission accomplished. Unfortunately, 2024 saw the beginning of the deconstruction of our Constitutional government and rule of law.

Your reason is as follows:


See above.

And where did you lay out your disagreement with the Pope's instruction? Or have you moved on?

How many other madmen have you voted to keep out of office, say, prior to 2016. Is it possible your definition of "mad" is tailored to the occasion?

There's no madman like Trump, so do with that what you will.

It is a forum.

I may at times be interested in another viewpoint, while at other times I'm interested in promoting my own in the face of poorly argued viewpoints.

I've always loved a good conversation, and/or a challenging conversation (they're not necessarily both).

You posture your way, and I'll posture mine.

Deal.

But I do appreciate that you have continued the conversation thus far.

The opportunities around here are limited, maybe neither of us can afford to be too picky.

 

[Derf]

In 2020, my vote helped keep Trump out of office. Mission accomplished. Unfortunately, 2024 saw the beginning of the deconstruction of our Constitutional government and rule of law.

You think the rule of law and our constitutional government were completely intact before then? So Trump did not start the deconstruction in 2016?

And where did you lay out your disagreement with the Pope's instruction? Or have you moved on?

I think your pope's view is equally valid if rendered, "Choose the least evil person."

There's no madman like Trump, so do with that what you will.

Of course, whether he is mad or not, your statement is true, making it of little use to determine who one should vote for. Here's an example: There's no madman like Biden. Therefore, if that was your reason for voting against Trump, it applies equally well to Biden, or Harris, or Obama, or Bush, etc.

So, can you verbalize the policies (start with one or two if you like) that make you think Trump is mad?

I've always loved a good conversation, and/or a challenging conversation (they're not necessarily both).

Agreed.

Deal.



The opportunities around here are limited, maybe neither of us can afford to be too picky.

The only way, imho, to increase the opportunities, to raise the quality of conversations anywhere, is to engage with those who are currently less capable, or at least are not living up to their potential, and persevere--as I'm currently doing , and as I hope you believe you are currently doing.

 

[annabenedetti]

You think the rule of law and our constitutional government were completely intact before then? So Trump did not start the deconstruction in 2016?

They were more intact then than they are now. This is all part of Project 2025's plan to "bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will," as Russell Vought put it.

While Trump established in his first presidency that he could break any guardrails, at will, and get away with it, he had enough experienced staffers, generals, and advisors to reel in the craziness. Of course many were fired, but they slowed him down enough.

It was the work of the intervening four years of pulling together Project 2025 (which he pretended no to know about) which prepared his executive orders and set the stage for the disastrous DOGE, which didn't end up saving hardly any of the 2 trillion promised, because why? Maybe because, as one engineer for DOGE said, he "didn't find the levels of fraud, waste, and abuse he expected;" in fact, he was "pretty surprised, actually, at how efficient the government was." DOGE tore through the government with the intent to carry through Vought's agenda:

"We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so.​

​

We want to put them in trauma."​

NOAA, the VA, FEMA, NASA, SSA, FAA, and more, these agencies were gutted; experienced workers protecting American lives and interests were given the fork in the road, while ICE was given a greater budget than many world armies.

I think your pope's view is equally valid if rendered, "Choose the least evil person."

So now you know why I can, with Catholic conscience, vote for a Democrat. The right's had a stranglehold on voters for decades, I know from personal experience. It was a guaranteed vote for the GOP, preached from the pulpits.

Of course, whether he is mad or not, your statement is true, making it of little use to determine who one should vote for. Here's an example: There's no madman like Biden. Therefore, if that was your reason for voting against Trump, it applies equally well to Biden, or Harris, or Obama, or Bush, etc.

So, can you verbalize the policies (start with one or two if you like) that make you think Trump is mad?

Wanting to annex Canada and Greenland.

Agreed.

The only way, imho, to increase the opportunities, to raise the quality of conversations anywhere, is to engage with those who are currently less capable, or at least are not living up to their potential, and persevere--as I'm currently doing , and as I hope you believe you are currently doing.

Definitely persevering. : )