/townhall/ - Townhall

1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

The existence of the state itself is a barrier to freedom.
Doesn't matter if they wear blue or red ties. Each contest is a political football of which side will preside over pumping more carbon dioxide into the planet.

Never thought it'd happen.
We won, bros.

...one of these, maybe - unless you are more of an earth element, in which case a symbol of Ferio's or Master Mage Clef. i don't have any tattoos

>>15122
This is very a good question, and the smattering of news articles that I've seen that I remember appear to describe six eruptions happening in the past four years, counting what just happened as well as these including calm-ish situations where not that much material got actually squirted out.

I'm aware that "six in a period of four years" can be converted by easy and simple math to "???? per year", but I'm too mentally fried at the moment to do that, honestly.

Feel free to check this for yourself, using other news agencies if you want, of course.

I'd say that it is mostly calculated risk as the soil around the vulcanos tends to be the most fertile also.

>>15155

Yeah this, also the predominance of natural springs near volcanoes. Like look at Japan for instance, the main island in the archipelago has a ton of natural hot springs that can provide an abundance of fresh water

Maybe. What do you think?

I would love to make more eurobeat some day. Haven't got a professional studio, but it doesn't stop me from giving it a go in some less expensive software.

I mean besides the obvious impact on the road safety on a global scale, people would simply follow the philosophy of.
>Make JDM meets, not war.

>>15143
Nothing against you, or against that result, but I'm now wondering... what's with that guy's arm in the image? It looks off?

...which is weird because I'm not highly-educated, not urban, not in work, hate Labour (at least right now), and try to be apolitical on social media.

But otherwise it's kind of a 'tell me something I don't know' situation.

>>15142
And doing it myself (again)...

This isn't a surprise for me personally, but there's a lot of context that's also important, particularly since as an Irish-American I wish to see both the destruction of the United Kingdom as a political entity through a United Ireland and also the elimination of the British monarchy as a political entity.

There's also the fact that my hatred for the psychotic and nihilistic rich people in the United Kingdom running the economy into the ground (alongside other forms of idiotic financial policy meant to benefit elite property owners at the expense of everybody else) doesn't mean that I support what're essentially open borders. Neither do I like getting rid of what might call the assimilation process in promoting classical British values. To be frank, I'd agree with the immigration resurrectionists and patriots who talk about heritage and moderating social programs mostly if not maybe entirely, with those groups being on the right-wing usually.

I don't view the British monarchy and the cream-of-the-crop gentry as on 'my side', though, so there I'm totally against the right-wing in the U.K. If anything, I think having endless waves of downtrodden immigrants who destroy health systems, labor union systems, education systems, and other things by their sheer mass is exactly what the oligarchs who live in mansions and hate the poor want. I also share the desire to be far, far tougher on crime and criminals. Which, again, is something that appears to me to benefit the poor rather than the powerful elite, who likely would prefer to rule over a quasi-anarchy keeping the other groups below them unorganized.

From my point of view, left-wing social viewpoints and right-wing economic policies go hand-in-hand while right-wing social viewpoints and left-wing economic policies go hand-in-hand. I suppose. Hard to say that clearly, though.

Eh, it's still all quite interesting! I really think so!

My great-great-uncle lied about his age to go fight the Nazis in France. Two days in he got shot by a sniper and died. Presumably he never even saw combat.

A lot of people die like that in modern warfare. They get blown up or shot somewhere vital and that's it. Taking a human life, robbing two parents of their child, is really too simple.

So honestly? On the face of it, it's just another state-sanctioned murder. But going down staking one's life on a personal test of strength, skill and determination is a far better death than most get. You might still die in the end, but you'll die having forced your killer to look you in the eyes and respect you as a fellow warrior.

Maybe the guy is rolling in his grave reading this post from a person on their PC posting an anime cheerleader, but I'm just trying to see the good in the situation.

>>15136
I honestly hate living in a world in which "Human Safaris!" are a normal, natural thing, with regular civilians living their ordinary lives being intentionally killed by military aircraft.

At the same time, well, I'm positive that this is going to get much, much worse given that less and less governments across Earth care about protecting civilians in wartime, especially when it comes to disabled and elderly people who might be perceived as of less ethical worth than others.

Note: this video does not include clips of the actual "hunting" involved by Russian aircraft and anything related to that. In American terms, it would be something like a 'PG' or 'PG-13' video.

>>15140
>>15141
Yes. That individual, Passionate Lion, is thinking correctly and is right.

>>15145
Given my academic background and work experience, my first instinct is to look at the student loan crisis from a straightforwardly economic perspective.

Any financial instrument that's an asset, whether we're talking about a group of bonds, a collection of stocks, a couple of accounts receiving loan payments, or whatever else, can be bought directly by the U.S. government for the purposes of regular maintenance, like when it comes to doing anything that you'd want the state to do.

There's really nothing, as far as I can tell, keeping the executive branch from simply buying up between 50% to 100% of the student loan related instruments in the U.S. and just sitting on them as assets. Not bothering to collect any money at any point, with people being able to pay everything back basically whenever. Or, frankly, the government could just discard all of those assets. Something like a grand write-off. Honestly, I would want this to happen were I in any way a part of the government.

>>15147
The leftwing bias of most of higher ed is finally starting to bite it.  Republicans have noticed that most profs and academic departments are quite hostile to Republicans and right-wing ideas.

>>15147
See *Biden v. Nebraska*, 600 U.S. 477 (2023). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_v._Nebraska

Summary from ChatGPT:
"""
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan was unconstitutional because it exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch under existing laws. Here are the key reasons cited in the ruling:

1. **Separation of Powers**:
  - The Supreme Court determined that the executive branch did not have the unilateral authority to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student debt without explicit approval from Congress. This was viewed as a violation of the separation of powers, as such a sweeping action requires legislative approval.

2. **Major Questions Doctrine**:
  - The court invoked the *major questions doctrine*, which holds that federal agencies must have clear congressional authorization to take actions of vast economic and political significance. The justices ruled that the law cited by the Biden administration—the HEROES Act of 2003—did not explicitly grant the authority to implement such widespread debt cancellation.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>15148
Yes, for the federal government to just seize any financial entity of any kind requires a hell of a lot of things to be true in the first place in order to make it clear that some special circumstances apply. Otherwise, one ought to respect the way in which a free market with private property rules works. That makes sense to me as well.

Otherwise, naturally, America would become like modern China and Russia in which those in the legislature can just straight up steal a company that they personally want to have, based on nothing other than "Gimme!". Or anybody else in the government doing whatever the hell that they want, with regular people having no sense of there being a rule-of-law that applies fairly. I think Iran also isn't much different either.

The most reasonable thing would be the most rational thing, as stated in >>15147 in detail, with Congress and the executive branch just passing ordinary laws that allow student loan related financial instruments to simply be bought fair-and-square.

Shooting somebody until they die is an act of murder.

Preventing a cancer patient from being able to heal themselves and doing that over and over again until they die is also an act of murder.

It's not exactly difficult to understand why a murderer being themselves murdered generates complex, mixed feelings among innocent bystanders such as myself and the OP.

As has been pointed out many times and many ways, this CEO would literally still be alive if he didn't head an organization that genuinely makes money from causing other people's deaths. He would be walking and talking in perfect health today if he had made better choices in his life. CEOs in charge of companies that bake bread, manufacture cars, repair computers, print books, grill fish, and the like felt no fear of any kind after this assassination. For obvious reasons.

The issue at hand should not be about whether Luigi Mangione is a terrorist or not.

The discussion to be had is how to ensure that the average American citizen has access to quality affordable healthcare. Especially now that Medicare/Medicaid are on the chopping block.
Because it seems Health insurance companies are eating away the funds of their customers while denying any request where they have to pay out, resulting in people still not receiving any decent care despite spending what little money they have.

>>15131
> At least from my point of view. But my point of view doesn't matter because I'm not American.

90% of the far right victories in Europe are set over immigration.

It's the main reason why people voted UK to leave.

While the current issue is another part framed in recent US politics, this is relevant in the Western world entirely.

>>15131
It should be noted that the OP image and OP text as well as >>15126 as a response all describe a large number of immigrants coming to the U.S., at the level of hundreds of thousands of people moving, instead of a closed border coming into being with nobody going anywhere.

So, the question of the thread isn't "Should mass immigration to the U.S. be allowed, legally and morally?" but is actually "How and why exactly should mass immigration to the U.S. take place, if will occur in the future?".

>>15132
Understandable. We should strive to be more like post brexit UK.

What is the IRB? I know what an IRB is but not The IRB.

>>15128
This is a good read:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/

>>15129
I see. It sounds like that man had a shitty IRB.

I was confused since the question implied the existence of a centralized universal Internal Review Board.

>>15116

>At what point in my life am I going to be free without somebody needing to keep me from "sinning" against my will?

Join a liberal religion that accepts everyone, like Unitarianism, Unitarian Universalism, some denominations of liberal Christianity (United Church of Christ, some (non-conservative conference) Congregationalist Churches, meditation groups, etc. ...

>Should I like fake marrying somebody and fake going to church a lot while faking donating to certain political organizations... or what has to happen before I'm able to just be left alone?

Nah, don't do that. Christian fundamentalists are only fighting so hard because their influence is waning.

>>15116
In the case of the tale in OP, I guess the way would be to get the media to constantly lie and attack you, to the point where nobody believes them and nobody cares even if the claims were to be true.

>>15117
>Christian fundamentalists are only fighting so hard because their influence is waning.
HUH?

They're stronger than they've been in years. They've literally gotten to control both Congress and the Supreme Court. They're also now about to control the U.S. Presidency again.

If anything, I'm trying hard to figure out how to fake being one myself, lately.