And now to wait for Russia to do the same since the gentlemans agreement not to weaponize space is officially gone. Rather than unofficially never adhered to.

Wasn’t it just that you can’t have nukes in space?

Nuclear weapons and other WMD cannot be placed into orbit, and celestial bodies cannot be used as testing grounds, military bases, and cannot have weapons of any kind. Conventional weapons in orbit are A-OK.

So ABM interceptor missiles & lasers wouldn't violate the treaty, and rods-from-god would probably also be OK presuming they are built with yields in line with conventional munitions.

pretty sure missiles wouldn't work nearly as well in space for intercepting anything.

outside of stuff already in a known orbit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC6ZUBF6rSo

https://www.change.org/p/youtube-delete-logan-paul-s-youtube-channel

I made this a WHILE ago.

BTW I'm True Neutral.

I guess Hitler was lawful good

Actually, Hitler would've been Lawful Neutral, I'm ashamed to say.

The person I most associate with "lawful neutral" is Sessions. I've never seen someone so literally try to obey the letter of the law.

Well, I mean

That chart is meant entirely as a joke, anyway.

true, just a statement I wanted to say that no one would actually listen to

but the actual political compass test does NOT actually measure policy

only inclination

in much the same way that how much you bench press does not measure how well you'll do in a fight.

There are other factors

and part of the point of horseshoe theory is really that authoritarians who don't share the same political outlook hate each other, and people who are on the libertarian (chaotic) side of things are far more likely to be able to coexist in peace, at the very least.

Wew https://mobile.twitter.com/McDonaIdsDM/status/1008827282302164998

@Timcast

So, in dealing with people online, I think I'm going to start reposting people's arguments with appeals to emotion removed before I continue to dismantle their argument. I just had one particular argument (where I didn't think to do this first). Anyone care to judge? I'm trying to leave in things that are relevant to the conversation, anything you'd remove or add, I'm fine tuning here.

into

Really, I feel like I could remove a bit more, but I want to have something to argue against in this. -_-

You can re-insert "Why not keep families together as they await trial?"

I want to start illustrating to people that most of their arguments are based in emotional appeal as opposed to actual reasoning.

Did I drop that? shit.

I'm going to give this a full second pass

Actually, I did leave the heart of that in as the first line

I just didn't have it repeat.

It's the same line, just in a different spot

my bad

Yup.

I like Shapiro's take on it. Equating Mexican immigrants to the Japanese citizens in ww2 is a false narrative.

Oh absolutely.

Mexicans aren't US citizens and are breaking the law by entering illegally.

I made a repeated point that this was equal treatment under the law, as well.

The Biblical stuff would be pointless but fun. Half the Bible's stories are about situations that the "right thing" conflicts with the letter of the law. It has a big "Context is key" aspect to it.

It can be complained about and asked for, but keeping families separated is a law actually, as a part of that Flores case

Has nothing to do with Trump

As an atheist, I wasn't interested in arguing bible with another atheist.

It never goes well.

lol

Exactly.

They cannot put the children in jail

The children are not accused of a crime, they are minors.

Therefore, the government must treat them as wards of the state

(If a single parent is found inside a house they've broken into, their child isn't left unattended while the parent is arrested.)

Basis of my equal treatment under the law argument

Might want to mention how proper documentation allows for reuniting the family when things are cleared up

I've already bombed all of his arguments into retreat.

O no

Was that facebook?

Totally did not just dox myself.

didn't happen.

Lel

When people on my friends list in Facebook start saying the right are nazis, etc.

I take it as an ultimatum.

I either convince them there's another perspective

or they remove me from their friends list.

Either one is an acceptable outcome.

4 pointed argument dismantling any excuse for a weak border policy, too.

There is no option but to defend our borders.

And there aren't any better ways of handling the inflow from Mexico, either, because Catch and Release can't coexist with Sanctuary Cities.

Typically, an argument goes over better if you can throne a bone to emotion if you can. It isn't necessary, but winning the argument isn't the point. Convincing the other person there's a reasonable way to think in the opposite way is.

That's why I bring the Human Trafficking aspect into it

the part that I find disgusting.

Our state has to deal with 18 wheeler trailers on a monthly basis, with no ventilation, no climate control systems, just packed down with 50+ illegals.

Every once in a while, one will get abandoned.

If one of those people is an unwilling participant, lax borders makes it that much harder to find the missing person

There's also the high probability of rape for women who attempt to hire coyotes to make it across

Extortion

ransom

https://twitter.com/isi_kbreen/status/1008416476649459719?s=19

Murder was illegal.

Pedophilia is illegal.

good luke ryecast you have your work cut out for you

What about Pedophilia? Love is love!

Being black without an owner wasn't necessarily illegal, just unlikely. Minor nitpick

I mean... yeah.

@CreativeRealms

I don't support that argument, just posted it here because it was stupid af

Oh, I know

lel

I got that from the post

I wouldn't think anyone here would go full godwin.

Not unless it was fully necessary.