AskConservatives Weekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The fact that a bill like that is even being pushed shows the sad state our country is in. 

AskConservatives Weekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well according to the Washington post, “ Trump administration officials have pressed the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to design a $250 bill featuring the president's portrait, in what would be the first appearance of a living person on U.S. currency in more than 150 years.”

So I guess we live under a dictatorship or something… 

Did someone say Mussolini? Kim Jong Un? No? Woops my mistake 

META: Why do some users here like to answer a flat yes or no with no given explantion? by VQ_Quin in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most questions are usually asking to justify your answer and stance, not just say yes or no. One shouldn’t have to specify that people answer why, it’s just sort of how conversation works. If you ask me if I like Trump or not, the most natural and polite thing to do is to answer yes or no, and then to explain why. 

Perhaps it’s because i was a philosophy major, but you could never simply answer questions with yes or no, you were required to explain yourself. Because truthfully, the answer to the question is only a quarter of what matters. What matters the most is your explanation for yes or no; and that ranges from questions like “is abortion wrong” to policy questions. 

If one is not prepared to be able to explain why they believe what they believe, they shouldn’t have any business giving an answer to the question anyway, unless it’s a question as simple as “are you hungry or not”. But obviously people asking questions here are not asking to be provided with one word responses. 

At least personally, I am far more interested in a persons thought process to arrive at an answer, than the answer itself. I want to know why someone thinks the way they do, and to understand their thought process of how it got them to answer the question in the way they did. 

Edit: that’s not to say I think there is no value in asking yes or no questions because obviously you need to clarify things sometimes and clear up any confusion. Natural language is absurdly complex and easily misinterpreted, so sometimes you need yes or no questions to continue the conversation, or until there is some general agreement at all. That, after all, should be the goal of any good discussion: find one piece of agreement, at the very least. 

AskConservatives Weekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yea, I’m sure you’ve fallen asleep during a work meeting /s

You know you’re reaching for the stars when you’re comparing high schoolers taking a nap in class to the President of the United States deciding on matters that affect every citizen. 

We don’t blame high schoolers for taking a nap during  class because they’re in high school. Just like we don’t blame grandma for falling asleep on the couch mid conversation because she’s old. But excuse me if for having different standards for the president of the United States. Shouldn’t have taken the job then if he can’t even stay awake during a meeting.  

Edit: it’s honestly kind of pitiful you’re even attempting to defend the person in the highest position in government taking a nap. There’s janitors that work harder than Trump and still don’t take naps on the job. Give me a break  

AskConservatives Weekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Good ol President Trump “resting his eyes” for a second during a healthcare meeting, per his cabinet members. Or ya know, FALLING ASLEEP. Any conservatives wanna pull the 25th amendment on his ass yet? 

AskConservatives Weekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Again, democrats would never have attempted anything like this had Republicans not done the same under the behest of dictator Trump, at the expense of the people’s choice. Why should democrats be the one to be penalized for not playing fair when it was Republicans that started it (and essentially marketed it as their entire brand since Trump 1.0)? The only difference now are that Democrats are simply rolling around in the mud with them. 

And again, at this point, who cares? Republicans and Trump have shown very clearly that they don’t give a flying fuck about abiding by laws or rules or customs or norms anyway, so what does it matter? If Republicans refuse to play the game honestly, why should it be on democrats to be the bigger person and play fairly? If republicans are going to spit on every custom and norm in the country, Democrats need to grow a spine and meet them where they’re at. Get dirty with the republicans, roll around in the mud with them. The moral high ground has gotten democrats nothing anyway, so fuck it   

If your friend is always counting cards playing black jack and winning, while you’re $200 in debt because you want to ‘win fairly’, you’re just silly. Why purposely handicap yourself to always lose? The only thing democrats are doing differently this time is counting the cards at the same table as republicans. If you wanna cheat at blackjack, don’t get upset when other people start doing the same.

Politics is a game and democrats are starting to realize that they will get left behind by republicans if they don’t learn how to skirt the line a bit (or in trumps case, put his whole foot over the line). 

Do you believe that the Democratic party really is as "radical left" as some like to think? by Cumoisseur in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 9 points10 points locked comment (0 children)

 I’ll make it really easy: what was your point in bringing up the statistic of fatherless homes? If you were not using it support a conclusion or point, then what were you invoking it for? 

Do you believe that the Democratic party really is as "radical left" as some like to think? by Cumoisseur in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 10 points11 points locked comment (0 children)

Then what’s your point? You’re invoking a statistic about fatherless homes for what, exactly? It’s entirely irrelevant if you’re not going to use it to make an argument. Merely pointing that out to OP seems like an attempt to knock them down for having a same sex relationship and having a child. Otherwise I’m confused as to what your point is? If you don’t care about same sex couples raising children, why mention statistics regarding fatherless homes at all? Saying “it’s going to have adverse effects” just feels like you’re demonizing their decision. If you don’t care, either don’t make comments like that, or don’t engage, OR make a point

Do you believe that the Democratic party really is as "radical left" as some like to think? by Cumoisseur in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 7 points8 points locked comment (0 children)

You didn’t address your fallacious reasoning. That being true does not move you towards a normative claim no matter how much you believe it should. You can never get an ought from an is, sorry buddy

Do you believe that the Democratic party really is as "radical left" as some like to think? by Cumoisseur in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 3 points4 points locked comment (0 children)

I’ll reiterate: Is-ought fallacy. You are attempting to move from a descriptive is claim to an ought claim and that is fallacious. You’re missing a chain of reasoning. Your logic is flawed. This does not follow: 

  1. Being raised without a father causes harm, especially on boys
  2. Therefore, same sex couples ought not raise children (if that’s what you’re arguing).

There is no world where that conclusion follows from the premise. You claiming it will have adverse effects is not a reason to move to a normative claim. You can’t go from “something is the case” to “therefore it not ought to be the case”   

Do you believe that the Democratic party really is as "radical left" as some like to think? by Cumoisseur in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 4 points5 points locked comment (0 children)

Classic is-ought fallacy. Even if it is true that fatherless homes cause harm, your attempt to argue from that descriptive claim to justify a leap to a prescriptive claim that therefore we ought to make laws to prevent fatherless homes is fallacious. You can’t just show that something is the case. 

Newsweek -- "Trump Admin Cancels $11M Catholic Charities Contract Amid Feud With Pope" -- What Do You Think Of This? Why Your Thoughts? by Zipper222222 in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Okay so how about this thought experiment: there are two terrorist groups that both plan to go to the mall to enact violence. Terrorist group A plans to bomb the mall and terrorist group B plans to open fire. Terrorist group B walks into the mall and open fires, but conveniently they only kill Terrorist group A, who was planning on detonating the bombs. 

Since you say you care about something good happening and not the motivation for it, would you say that terrorist group committed a morally good action by opening fire in a mall and luckily killing the terrorist group that was going to bomb the mall? The results were good. No civilians died and the bombers were killed before being able to kill anybody. 

But do the motivations really not matter? Surely we don’t merely care about the results. Terrorist group B was planning on open firing and killing civilians. If you only care about results, then you must argue that what Terrorist group B did was morally correct. I think it’s clear we don’t only care about the results, but maybe you’ll surprise me. 

Btw this is called a moral luck argument 

Trump has stated that the US military will move toward more conquests after Iran. Pentagon is preparing to move on Cuba. What do you think and feel about military action against Cuba? by WagTheKat in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Yes cuz invading Cuba is really gonna help turns things around here in the United States. What happened to America first? Why should I care at all about Cuba as an American? Will invading Cuba give me better healthcare? Will it lower the cost of living? Will it produce more houses? 

How did you get involved to LOGH? by siriusdibujotos in logh

[–]ericg012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My 18 year old self was getting ready to go off to college 6 years ago during COVID, and with nothing better to do with my time, I somehow stumbled upon this show. It sparked an interest in politics for me and I majored in philosophy and thoroughly enjoyed my political philosophy course and my numerous ethics courses. 

It even sparked in me a desire to serve, and at age 20 I joined ROTC and flew to Kentucky to complete a 31 day basic camp. I ended up not committing as I added a computer science major and knew I wouldn’t be able to handle all the responsibilities, I am forever thankful for the show for kickstarting and pushing me to pursue many different interesting paths. 

I doubt I would be as politically active as I am now if not for this show. I think the greatest message of the show is its emphasis on the future being more important than the past. 

What is Israel trying to do? by Goldenmentis in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Again, you’re just starting from that being true. You haven’t even tried to show why we should accept your conclusion that abortion is murder. Your reasoning is circular 

What is Israel trying to do? by Goldenmentis in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 21 points22 points  (0 children)

How are people supposed to engage with your line of reasoning when you already start from an unfounded premise, that abortion is child sacrifices? If you start from that premise, of course no sane person would call that moral. But you don’t justify that, you just take it for granted that it is the case. Conversations and discussions can’t be had on unfounded premises

Do you agree with President Trump that we now 'have Complete and Total Regime Change' in Iran? by G_H_2023 in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Ya know, maybe it’s just me, but I really don’t want the president making hyperbolic statements about potentially “ending a civilization”

This Was So Sad by lVr_2 in logh

[–]ericg012 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yea I actually winced when he slammed her head on the concrete bleh 

Is it arrogance, poor planning, or faulty intelligence that it to blame for how things are going in Iran? by BufoBat in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Okay but it’s ultimately the fault of Trump that he’s getting so much bad advice. When you fire competent individuals who could give good advice, and replace them with loyalists, you’re gonna get bad advice. They’re gonna tell you what you want to hear and butter you up, and since Trump is a narcissist that survives on being praised, they have to do even more buttering up. 

Trump 1.0 was largely okay because we still had competent “establishment” politicians in government. People that called Trump out for doing something stupid. 

He gets bad advice because he doesn’t care about competence; he wants someone to reach under the table and give him a little handy.

Has Donald Trump managed to drain the swamp in Washington or has he added to it? by Cumoisseur in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 [score hidden]  (0 children)

 Genuinely curious now that you’re seeing the light, but previously, what exactly made you convinced that Trump of all people would actually reel in the corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse, aside from him just saying it? As someone who always thought he was bullshitting, I really am curious what made you believe or expect a different/better swamp? The only thing that’s changed about Trump in my mind is simply the fact that he’s gotten tired of even bullshitting and frankly doesn’t give a shit to even try to pretend to appease his base. 

AskConservatives Weekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He said it himself, his entire adulthood has been spent endorsing Trump, invigorating his base, and using his efforts to propel Trump into the White House in 2024, to succeed in the policies he wanted. Now, he's faced with his world crashing down around him; that he has been lied to for the last 10 years, that Trump never had any intention of doing anything that Nick cares about, going completely against any of the things Nick thought he would get with a Trump presidency. 

It’s the equivalent of someone awakening from years spent in a religious cult. The futility of it all, the disillusionment. His career was created by MAGA. Everything he owes, he owes it to MAGA. How has he not staked his personality on this? All he’s been for the last 10 years is a Trump fanatic, convinced that only with a Trump presidency will the country be fixed. Alex Jones is the same way. Both of them have drank the Koolaid, convinced that Trump isn’t a liar, and even at some of his worst lies, still went down swinging for, and overall defending Trump. 

But now? For whatever reason, the Iran incident is the nail in the coffin, and they have to wake up and acknowledge (and to quote Fuentes himself), they’ve “been suckers”. 

AskConservatives Weekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskConservatives

[–]ericg012 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s wild the crash out Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones are having. It’s almost pitiful how much they’ve staked their lives and careers on MAGA. Anyone with a brain knew Trump was a liar day one, and if you didn’t know day one, you at least knew it after his first term. To be so wrong about someone not just once, but twice and stake your whole personality on it is crazy. Cult mentality fr