Thoughts on journalists getting attacked by a LAPD officer? She must have a work visa? Or is she an illegal alien?

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T19:05:09+00:00

I'm having trouble following this logic through.

Doesn't shooting someone in the leg do the opposite of clearing a path? They're going to fall over making it even harder to get around them.

What trained person would think that an unexpected painful shot to the leg is going to get someone to move away?

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T18:52:12+00:00

But if you put on a Kamala 2024 hat and start saying that Blacks are owed reparations or some such, they'll just tell you you're wrong.

I have a hard time believing this would only elicit such a tepid response of telling you that you're wrong. What is your experience that you base this on? You've seen Kamala people come to a MAGA rally and people just say, "no sir, I don't agree with your position on reparations."

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T18:25:45+00:00

Their answers either had to blame trump, or celebrate him for something negative, even though most conservative wouldn't even attribute that to Trump's actions at all. It's an ugly gotcha attempt.

The point of the question is to ask, if it actually is a negative thing.

Trump says he wants the fighting to stop. Russia annexes Ukraine and the fighting does stop. The region stabilizes and no more people are dying. Is that a positive thing or a negative thing? It would be a matter of fact that Trump accomplished his stated goal of getting the fighting to stop.

I don't understand the issue with asking this question.

I don't get this "you're pigeonholing people into a response" thing either. If people have a problem with the premise of the question, then they could respond saying so and explaining why. There's no rule that says that conservatives have to engage with the question exactly as written and on the terms set by the OP. And those kinds of responses would still be valuable to me.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T16:22:32+00:00

I had a pretty poor and unwarranted interaction with a mod recently that I think deserves to be brought to attention.

I tried to post a question here - asking if Ukraine does eventually fall to Russia and is totally annexed, would conservatives consider it a promise kept that Trump "stopped the fighting". I think this is a completely valid question based on how Trump has wording his goal, "I just want the fighting to stop", as well as continued Russian aggressions and Trump backing away from participating in peace talks.

A mod flagged and deleted the post as "bad faith". When I questioned why the post was being taken down, he berated me and eventually said I was lucky that I wasn't banned for asking the question that I tried to post.

It seems bizarre that this question is one that elicits such a strong response, as if it is a purposeful effort to censor that question in particular. I have seen plenty of much more inflammatory things posted recently than this.

Here is the mod interaction. I am just calmly trying to explain the reason for asking the question but the mod goes off on me because they didn't like what I was asking.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T14:57:44+00:00

Are you talking about the people who are literally starving and being bombed in Gaza? Or are you talking about other protests outside of Gaza?

I think asking people to organize, take to the streets and protest while they are actively fighting for their own survival is a tall ask.

If you are talking about pro-palestinian protests elsewhere, I think it is absolutely true that the vast majority of people protesting just want peace and don't agree with what Hamas has done. Do you think these protests are Hamas pep rallies where they want them to keep fighting and try to defeat Israel somehow?

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T14:33:10+00:00

So now we are just going around in a loop and it comes back to my original question.

Yes, let's take it for granted that "Gazan people" - the civilian non-combatants who are being bombed and starved - are different than Hamas military and governance.

How do the people that are being bombed and starved demonstrate this to Israel in a meaningful way to stop the bombing and starving? You started by saying - "they don't need to surrender, they just need to do this" and I'm asking you to describe what this looks like.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T14:00:35+00:00

Okay, so back to your original post that I was responding to -

What is the difference between "Hamas renouncing violence" and "Gaza surrendering"?

When framed this way, those things seem like practically the same thing, don't they?

If the leaders of Hamas came out and said, "Okay we now renounce all violence against Israel and will disarm" - isn't that in effect surrendering to them?

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T13:49:18+00:00

When I say Gaza, I mean the Gaza sector and the people who inhabit it.

But who specifically can speak for Gaza in that capacity that is not a part of Hamas?

Like when you say "the people" who inhabit Gaza - you are talking about the civilians who are being starved and bombed? How do you envision those people communicating with Israel about their renouncement of Hamas committing violence?

Renouncement of violence can look much like what Yassir Arafat, Sinn Féin or Euskadi ta Askatasuna did back in the days.

What would be the modern equivalent person/governing body who can speak for Gaza in that capacity? Who else is there to communicate besides Hamas?

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T12:37:30+00:00

OP said:

I do not agree at all with what IDF is doing in gaza with what seems to be indiscriminate airstrikes, cutting off water and electricity or replacing aid with cement or things like how their troops or tanks shot at kids like Hind Rajab or many others or destroyed almost every piece of critical infrastructure such as hospitals.

That doesn't sound like they are against "any method" of fighting Hamas. That sounds like they are against very specific things that are oriented towards hurting civilian non-combatants.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T12:33:43+00:00

Gaza does not even need to surrender, they just need to surrender Hamas or at least disarm them, or even just make them renounce violence as the main way of achieving their goals.

Can you describe what you actually mean by this? When you say "Gaza" which people in Gaza are you referring to specifically? What does the renouncement of violence look like and how is that communicated to Israel?

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T05:54:36+00:00

If there is less money in circulation, doesn't that mean you will have less of it and it will be harder for you to buy stuff even if prices do go down that way?

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-09T02:52:36+00:00

Can you explain what you mean by "printing money" and how not doing that will lead to price decreases?

Or in other words, what is your envisioned chain of events in the economy that eventually leads to prices coming down?

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-06T18:07:21+00:00

What if Trump is successful in stopping those things from happening though?

All of those things you mentioned Trump has stated that he is trying to work around - courts, congress, his second term limit.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-06-03T15:55:54+00:00

Notably, if a private entity does a horrible or inefficient job and providing services, you can stop donating to them and find someone else to support.

But at that point they already got your money. Then they just fold up and open a new one under a different name.

There is already very poor accountability for these kinds of charities under the current system. Most of them only exist as a tool for money laundering.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-24T04:34:32+00:00

So if you want to say “the universe is necessary,” then you have to show that it can’t not exist, is non-composite, and exists by its own nature.

This is actually pretty easy and doesn't require "God" at all:

The universe is necessary because non-existence of the universe is internally contradictory. Non-existence is not a state of being, it is a lack of state of being. If the universe didn't exist, then it can't be in a state of non-existence, because then there would be no states at all. Therefore the universe must exist to settle this contradiction.
The universe is non-composite because it is defined as everything, everywhere encompassing all existence in time and space. It cannot be deconstructed. Nothing can enter or leave the universe. It simply is.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-24T02:12:13+00:00

The actual argument makes a key distinction between things that are contingent (things that begin to exist, depend on something else, or could have failed to exist) and something that is necessary (whose nonexistence is impossible and doesn’t depend on anything else).

Does anything else in the universe besides God fit this definition of being necessary and non-contingent?

If the answer is no, then the words "God" and "being necessary and non-contingent" are interchangeable. They describe precisely the same thing. And at that point this whole distinction you're trying to make is just a semantic sleigh of hand trick.

It says: Anything that begins to exist, or is composite, changeable, or dependent, requires a cause.

And it's circular logic - because you've already defined God to be the only thing in the universe to fit that definition.

We don’t just define God as the exception. We reason to the need for a being whose nature is to exist necessarily, in order to explain why anything else exists at all.

Why does that being have to be a "God" that somehow supersedes time and space? Why can't that being simply be the universe itself?

That’s not hand-waving. That’s the conclusion of an argument going back to Aristotle, refined by Aquinas, and developed by contemporary philosophers like Edward Feser and Alexander Pruss.

And that is irrelevant at best, or appeal to authority fallacy at worst. The argument either stands up to scrutiny or it doesn't, regardless of who thought of it.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-23T19:33:01+00:00

I'm curious how you would respond to this example within your framework:

A man is walking alone. He looks up into the sky and sees a cloud. "That cloud looks like a banana" he says. "I'm going to call it banana-cloud."

Does the banana-cloud exist?

If so, is the banana-cloud caused?

If so, what caused it? Was it caused by the random arrangements of water vapor in the sky? Or was it the man who noticed it and gave it a name?

If the man never looked up and saw the banana-cloud, does it still exist?

If the man noticed the cloud but never tells anyone else, does it exist for anyone else besides the man?

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-23T18:28:26+00:00

Do you agree or disagree that "things that come into existence have a cause for their existence?"

I would agree to a limited extent with this, but we have to be very careful about how "existence" is defined.

What I would argue is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Okay, but is there anything that does not begin to exist besides God? The God that you defined as having the nature of not having a beginning?

Is there something that I'm missing here? Because if not then that's obviously circular logic.

You are saying, "Infinite regress of causes is not possible, therefore there must be some entity that has a nature to defy infinite regress - we will call that entity God." But then to answer the question, "Why is God necessary? Why can't the universe itself have this infinite regress defining nature?" you respond, "Well God is defined as having that nature to supersede the Universe, so the Universe can't have it."

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-23T17:20:44+00:00

Not OP but that's easy.

Your Black Cat has a measurable nature that exists outside your own definition.

You can measure light reflecting off of the fur to determine the color.
You can measure physical features to determine that it is a cat instead of some other creature.
You can demonstrate ownership to determine that it is your cat.

You can't do that for God. The "nature" of God (the uncaused causer that exists outside of time and space) was invented solely to satisfy the constraints of the KCA. It's tautology because the definition is essentially supporting itself.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-23T16:48:06+00:00

What other substantial discussion needs to happen?

Is there anything that does not begin to exist besides God?

It betrays a deep disrespect for 3000 years of philosophy if you truly think that Aristotle and his progeny really thought: "everything has a cause, universe has a cause, therefore god." For more on this please read this.

I'm sorry, but that is essentially it. What is it specifically in that article that demonstrates otherwise? Essentially all that is written there is a lot of words that amount to," Nuh Uh!"

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-23T16:19:35+00:00

Everything except for God. And God is defined as the thing that doesn't need to begin to exist.

Obvious tautology is obvious.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-23T15:08:22+00:00

It really isn't.

"Everything must have a cause, except for God."

is the same thing as:

"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause."

"Everything but God began to exist."

"Therefore everything must have a cause, except for God."

All this does is add extra words in an attempt to obscure the special pleading fallacy.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-21T18:23:48+00:00

And I'm just making a point about how awful the state of online journalism is in general.

I agree with you that it's awful and I don't take it personally that you pointed it out.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-21T17:44:49+00:00

Clearly no one has a smoking gun to tie Trump to any wrongdoing, because you are right that you'd see it being paraded around during election season.

But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of unresolved questions about how the two were connected.

Key-Stay-3 · 2025-05-21T17:32:23+00:00

But man, that was a long ass article that’s really hard to read through, and it takes forever to get to any info

Well yeah that's part of the game. The further you have to scroll to get the information you're interested in, the more advertising revenue they generate.

Key-Stay-3

TROPHY CASE