PaintedSnail

My response would be that if you cannot explain your position, then you cannot defend it, and therefore you do not understand it yourself. This implies that you are simply feeling you way into your position using gut instincts, which are easily created and manipulated without a reasonably sound argument. An ad on TV, a op-ed piece only half heard, a slew of biased headlines, and more all contribute to these gut feelings without providing a rational base.

In short, I reject your claim that complicated positions cannot be explained. Yes, many can't be easily explained, but you should still be able to explain and defend them.

So when the position is challenged and you can't defend it because you have only these gut feelings at the core, you fall back on the belief that anyone would have the same feelings eventually. This is, of course, not true.

I hate that phrase so much.

It sole purpose is to belittle and dismiss the person you are talking to.

It tells the person that they are obviously unable to understand because of some unrelated trait. It's an ad-hominim that just shuts down the conversation.

It's only used by people that cannot actually defend their position, but rather than continue to discuss it, they would rather just shut out the other person.

It's them telling the other person "you are less than me which is why you are wrong, and you must simply accept that because you cannot possibly understand how I am right."

Not standing up to worse makes it more difficult to move away from less bad because now you have to deal with worse before to can get back to dealing with less bad.

There is a world of difference between cautioning someone that they may offend someone else and telling someone what they can/can't do because they believe someone else will be offended.

The first is a warning that the person should check with the potentially offended party.

The second is telling someone how they should behave based on their own sensibilities, not the sensibilities of the person they are talking to nor those of the potentially offended person. It is also being offended on behalf of someone else, which is telling that other person what they should be offended about.

Around me, Domino's is good enough emergency pizza, and cheap enough if you use one of their coupon deals and pick it up yourself.

On a scale of 0 being a cockroach pit and 10 being a mom and pop shop in Chicago, they're about a 5.5. It would be better if they cut down on the salt.

Slippery soap all over the floor would complicate matters.

OP: posts example of Republicans taking credit for things they opposed

ITT: "Roads are bad!"

Kinda missing the point, here.

This is why you can never disprove creationism sufficiently to convince a young Earth creationist. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

It also has built-in Facebook Container to isolate Facebook links.

https://newrepublic.com/post/187332/trump-biden-tough-netanyahu

When Trump says that Biden should not be holding Netanyahu back (regardless of whether or not he is) and that Netanyahu is doing a good job, then it can't be much more clear that Trump is going to enable even more.

You know, at first I was thinking that this is a really bad take. But then I realized something: this is a classic trolley problem.

Sparing the details because you probably already know them, it comes down to a choice: you can do nothing and five people will die, or you can actively perform an action and only one person will die. The only choice you have is to do nothing or do something.

So the problem becomes: which is the morally correct choice? On one hand, does doing nothing absolve you of the five deaths you could have avoided? On the other, does actively participating make you responsible for the one death even if it was to save five?

Back in the real world, you have the same choice. Since voting for a third party that has no chance of winning is functionally equivalent to not voting, it plays out the same way. You can do nothing and the genocide gets worse, or you can actively participate and try to reduce the damage. Which is the moral choice? Which will help you sleep at night?

That is a question philosophers have struggled with for centuries, and there's no good answer. From my personal perspective, doing nothing IS a choice, so no matter what I do I'm still an active participant. Therefore I will choose to minimize the damage.

Yes, it's bullshit that the current administration hasn't takes a tougher stance on the conflict. But it will be worse under Trump, as demonstrated by both his words and his actions when he was last in office. So the question is: which will help you sleep at night: doing nothing and telling yourself that you are not responsible when Trump wins, or doing something even though you know it won't be enough?

As powerless members of the masses, it's the best we can do.