"You just literally stated that it is okay for us to import potential terrorist refugees because they would only kill a small number of Americans."
What I said, had you bothered to understand it, is that the ideals America is to uphold are worth the lives of some patriots. Should you want to disagree with this, go ahead, but understand how cowardly you will appear in doing so.
That's mostly because the point that Trump is trying to make isn't accurate, isn't relevant, and doesn't remotely convey an accurate depiction of whatever threat or danger might exist from the taking in of Syrian refugees. I'll give you an example of how to fix this analogy based on the actual danger involved and to keep the analogy consistent.
-I present you with a swimming pool filled with Skittles and inform you that you can eat them by the handful, but within this swimming pool of Skittles, there are roughly 100 or so that have just enough poison in them to destroy roughly .001% of the cells in your body. Would you eat them?
My answer is YES, I fucking love Skittles and my body can recover quite easily from the loss of a tiny amount of cells in my body. The pleasure of Skittles (or the pleasure of being kind to the downtrodden of the world) far outweighs the displeasure of losing some cells in my body (having some of the downtrodden kill an unfortunate by statistically infinitesimal number of American citizens). In other words, taking in refugees, or eating the Skittles, does more good than harm, all while living up to the ideals of American society.
The biggest of many flaws in this stupid Skittles analogy is that it uses multiple skittles to represent refugees, but only a single body to represent America, a body which can be permadeathed by a few poison skittles. That isn't how this works, nor is it an accurate depiction of the situation and relevant dangers.
So, once again, the Trumps prey on the simple by playing con-man games. Cool candidate you have there, bro....
Um, no, none of what you wrote is either correct, nor was it the subject of this post (which I wrote, not Mike). The point of this post was that playing word games with customers is a shitty way to do business. It was not a comment on the quality of the ads that are still included in the ad-free service.
Good, informative, entertaining advertising most certainly IS content, and it can be captivating content when done correctly. I'm struggling to see how that's even arguable....
"ESPN gets even LESS sympathy, because they double douched in paying for the records and then making them public pretty much in direct violation of doctor patient confidentiality."
Um, no. ESPN by definition cannot violate patient doctor confidentiality as they are neither the patient nor the doctor. Again, this is a matter of who the lawsuits sights ought be set upon, and it sure shouldn't be ESPN, which did it's journalistic duty.
"Or rather they believed that their misfortunes were the result of their sins - but please bear in mind that the bible isn't supposed to be the literal word of God (like the Koran) but rather the writing of men inspired by God."
Well, that depends entirely on which version of Christianity you belong to, because biblical literalism is actually a thing....
"It rather depends on what you mean by secularism. Does secularism simply mean the separation of church and state - or does it mean some kind of aggressive anti-religious stance?"
Secularism is the policy of having the government both have no official religion and take no position of favor between religions. It is the separation of church and state. That's all it is.
"Since the United States motto is in God We Trust" it is not clear to me why it should be held up as an example of secularism."
I said we were secular, not PERFECTLY secular.
"I would describe the United States as a deeply religious, (historically) overwhelmingly Christian, country that adopted an (officially) religiously neutral government system in order to prevent the otherwise inevitable rise of religious conflict. In doing this the founding fathers were extending the model for defusing religious conflict that had earlier ended the 30 years war in Germany."
Which is about as perfect an example of secular democracy as you will find.
"To portray the founding fathers as non or even anti-religious is more than a stretch."
As with any other group of people, there was a mix. That said, some of the most important founders were certainly non-religious and/or actively atheist. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and Thomas Jefferson were all publicly deists at most, with all three of them actively writing against and making policy against religion. Paine in particular was about as anti-religious as it gets. Others called themselves Christian, but were so heavily influenced by deism that this claim doesn't really square with their other professed beliefs. Still others were devoutly Christian, such as Patrick Henry. That said, this nation was founded on the ideals of the enlightenment, which was itself a massive pushback on organized religion and its power.
To suggest that this nation isn't a beacon of secularism isn't just wrong, it missed the entire point of the country.
"The US government is thus a very different animal from the Chinese government - which still officially espouses atheism."
Correct. It would be every bit as illegal for our government to adopt a policy of atheism as Christianity. The 1st amendment's instructions to our government can bu summed up as: you shall take no position respecting religion.
"It is completely accurate, Google Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Darwin if you like."
Please. Stalin wasn't remotely a secularist. He created a church out of the state, was a minister in his youth, and even promoted "miracles" within communism, such as Lysenko's biology (2 harvests every season! wheee!). Mao Zedong, meanwhile, certainly was anti-religious, which isn't the same thing as secular. But, he ran his state as a secular state, so I take your point. However, why you would lead with Mao as an example of secularism instead of, oh I don't know, the UNITED STATES, is beyond me. As for Hitler, he wasn't remotely secular and it's laughable that you seem to think he was. He was overtly religious, as is easily proven.
"It also hits to your point that secular governments are somehow saints."
Not only did I not say anything remotely like that, I certainly hope you crafted the end of this sentence to be ironic, because it most certainly is. What I actually SAID was that secularism is preferable to theocracy. Is that REALLY something you're not prepared to agree with?
"And no, the Republicans are not the racist, sexist, phobic people the left like to believe they are. The only people that believe those lies are the left and it makes you look pathetic by repeating them."
Well, I'm most certainly not on the Left, as you call it, and Republicans most certainly ARE tilted towards racism and sexism to a degree more than the liberal parties we have. This isn't to make an overt generalization. Put another way: there are more members of a racist/sexist fringe in the Republican Party than in the Democrat Party. Both parties have these elements, both parties are NOT majority in those leanings, but pretending they're equal or that Dems are more racist is hysterically wrong....
"Your beloved Jefferson and the Dem party has a horrible history of treatment of people of color."
This is certainly true, as the Democratic Party prior to the realignment in the 50s-60s were as or more hardline anti-civil rights than the Republicans. On the other hand, the opposite has been the case since that realignement. So, shall we focus on what these parties had done in the first half of this century, or shall we focus on what they've done more recently and at present?
And, while Jefferson certainly had among the worst flaws imaginable in being a slave owner, I would stand by the statement that his work has brought more freedom to the world than any other person in the history of the planet.
"Not to mention your Darwinist friends in the communist party that have put many millions in the ground."
When is this canard about Darwin=Communist going to end? It's not accurate, it's barely correlative, and the term "Darwinist" doesn't even make sense....
"Covering Trump this way isn’t freeing. It’s uncomfortable, both for individual journalists and for the broader institutions they serve. I think, if anything, the likely reaction will be overcorrection: The press would be so happy to have a semi-normal Republican candidate it could cover respectfully that whoever follows Trump is likely to benefit from a bit of halo effect just by comparison."
And not just by the media, mind you. The next Republican Presidential candidate is already guaranteed to appear more likable, more sane, more Presidential by virtue of following this fiasco of a cycle. It's funny, but four years ago Ted Cruz was unelectable because of his place on the political spectrum being too extreme. What a Trump candidacy may have done is shift the American public's zero-point on the political spectrum to the right, far more than Bernie Sanders did so to the left. In 2020, Ted Cruz may still be considered extreme, but will likely realize less of a penalty for that extremeness because of this election cycle.
And that should be terrifying. It's also yet another reason why the press should not be engaging in false dichotomy and slaving itself to concepts of equal time that are undeserving.
"You have raised an interesting point, but in doing so, you also contradict yourself. Your aptly point out that vaccination not causing things like autism is a theory. However, you contradict yourself by making the assertion that it is the correct answer."
This is a PERFECT example of somebody not understanding how scientific evidence and terminology is used. That vaccines do not cause autism is not a "theory". That they DO cause autism IS the theory. The lack of a scientific link is not the standard against which the evidence should be offered, it's the LINK that is measured by evidence. That's the entire point.
So, when we talk about whether two sides deserve equal looks or time, that's not how science works. The one making the claim (that autism and vaccines are linked) has a MUCH higher evidence mountain to climb than the side that makes no claim at all (that there is no link). That's why the calls for open debate on the topic miss the point, because unless there is HIGHLY credible evidence for the claim, the claim can and should be dismissed.
Re: Re: Miami Brewing is about to lose its trademark
It absolutely happens. The way it works is that the organization being attacked by the holder of the overly broad trademark can respond by seeking to invalidate the trademark entirely. The dust up between a Kentucky distillery and the U of Kentucky featured this kind of petition, though I don't believe it was successful in that instance....