KillingTimeItself

It makes me very uncomfy from a fundamental perspective. Ignoring the fact that it goes against the founding principles of the US.

It provides rather wide and sweeping immunity, and even presumed immunity.

Although to be clear, the immunity act does not cover any private acts of the president, so if they were to for example,personally murder someone, it shouldn’t apply, even remotely.

Now to be clear, the likelihood that a government official uses this to kill people is incredibly small because otherwise the precedent that it would set would literally push us into civil war. Will trump do it ? Good question.

do that but make sure it’s just, the background of the image.

the president already has immunity as well? Though i believe specifically, it’s civil immunity, which tbf is probably most of the cases that would arise.

Regardless it’s literally enshrined in the founding papers of america, that the president is not treated any different from a normal civilian. It’s a foundational part of our government.

And if you really wanted immunity. Why not provide immunity during their tenure? And not outside of it. We can’t justifiably hold our president from the prospects of criminal charges, and we don’t (privately), and haven’t (entirely) for the past 200 years. And even if they did get charged with something, it’s not like you couldn’t get a pardon. That’s what happened with nixon.

Here’s a better question though. Why would the president ever break a law, could you provide a example where it would be obviously beneficial for the president of the US to be immune (across the board) from prosecution? Because in most cases where you would argue for it, it’s already explicitly immune due to a separate exclusive immunity, rather than inclusive immunity, as this provides. At best this seems incredibly redundant, and at worst this literally removes an entire segment of checks and balances against the executive, as currently defined, it basically blanket removes a check and balance.

Why not institute some form of decorum for processing and handling criminal charges against the executive that ensure that no duties are “inhibited” without providing a total immunity, except for cases that are not currently defined. It’s not like the president doesn’t have any legal experts around him.

And while it’s true that it’s dependent on what’s classified as an “official duty” the sole discretion of that is left up to the supreme court. Which removes the independent nature of the congress performing a check and balance. Especially considering the often turbulent nature of the modern supreme court.

So angry at me and sore at losing the argument that instead of just replying with your usual garbage, you replied to three different comments of mine; one on a completely different post (so you got so mad you started stalking my profile, hahahah), then this one, and lastly in the actual thread itself.

if we’re being factually accurate here, it should be four no? You left two comments in reply to one comment i made that i split into two separate ones due to word limit. And then i responded to this one, and another one about harry potter, and possibly a fifth one, though i’d have to go check it to be sure.

Just a proudly American fool who’s denying that Israel is committing war crimes like these.

demonstrate it.

nice copy pasta btw, try harder. You’re clearly tired from being wrong so often.

You’re such a bad liar

please explain to me what you think i’m lying about, i’m very curious.

Ah, so we’re using your definition, but the definition of the UN and the actions of Israel actually fulfilling reasonable grounds for it doesn’t matter, the experts on international law don’t matter, but things you pull out of your arse do? :D

ah yes, just the colloquially accepted definition of genocide by most jewish people, and also the general public at large, as a result of the actions of nazi fucking germany. Also i find it cute how you have silently retconned from saying “confirmed genocide” to “reasonable grounds for genocide”

And again, i don’t disagree with the experts, you just completely mischaracterize what they say and then shit yourself over it repeatedly until someone quits yelling at you for being wrong.

You’re literally ignoring the fact that the world is against Israel’s slaughter of women and children, so you get to this tantrum and start kicking your foot and going “waaah, waah, no no no, Israel no bad, only hamas bad!”

“fun fact, most people don’t agree that killing people is morally good” wow aren’t you just a stand up citizen, stating the laws of nearly every fucking country in the world. And the culturally accepted moral status of murder globally across the world, wow look at how far you’ve come.

Again, i am also against this, i have literally said as much. You’re just fucking stupid and refusing to acknowledge it.

The following are quotes of things that i have said, in this conversation:

did i mention the israeli settlements in westbank/gaza (however that works) because if not, why the fuck are they there? Yet another anti-israeli point for you to wrap your head around.

Oh look, another question you haven’t asked yet which btw, yes israel is comitting war crimes, and so has hamas. It’s almost like answering actual questions is, rather easy.

And this is just the first page of comments on my profile. You can almost certainly find more if you actually look through my history. But you won’t.

Then you go on a tiresome tirade about how you see “fallacies”. It’s rather entertaining, really, watching a kid like you larp understanding debating. That’s why I’m still in this thread. People like you disgust me, but it’s that sort of morbid type of disgust in which I’m sort of intrigued by it. Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting.

my brother not in christ, you have sealioned me this entire debate, and then without a hint of irony, you accused me of sealioning, even though clearly, you’re significantly more aggressive on me answering your questions, than i am on your answering my questions. WHICH MIGHT I ADD, IS BECAUSE YOU FUCKING IGNORE THEM.

following pulled from an actual philosopher. Something you would be deeply unfamiliar with.

American academic philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong discussed the term in his book Think Again: How to Reason and Argue, saying:

Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called ‘sealioning’. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes.

Your willfull ignorance is psychologically interesting

bro if you think willful* ignorance psychologically is “interesting” I regret to inform you that i don’t even yell at you to gather interesting information about you, because literally everything you’re doing right now is an already documented existing form of fallacy, or trolling. There is nothing else here.

And besides, willful ignorance is a well studied concept since at least the beginning of science. Probably well before it. Stoicism in some capacity is primarily based on willful ignorance. There are entire fucking religions based on the ignorance of modern society, and it’s methods of operation. In fact, there is an entire disorder on the schizophrenia spectrum that is primarily related to willful ignorance of most things not immediately relevant to an individual.

Yeah, people like you. People who act in this way,

as defined by what strict standards? Because you cannot be the one to define them. As that would be a conflict of involvement. For one thing, that’s dehumanization. A tale as old as racism. Secondly the entire purposes for the definition of my “actions” is to argumentatively enclose me into your small framework of the world. Because you don’t have the mental capacity to conceptualize anybody thinking outside of three cubic meters of physical space. And unfortunately for you, i am unbound by physical space. I could literally just start saying “israel is committing genocide against palestine” “death be to israel” tomorrow if i so pleased, and you could do nothing about it.

Which is what you’re doing, and which is what I talked about through-out this thread

it’s throughout, though i suppose that could be a regional difference huh?

you being the case in point

you ever stop to think about the everlasting effects of the dunning kruger effect? Yeah me neither. Good thing i’m not making any assertions on anything.

I hate genocide deniers

yet curiously, you defined it earlier as “grounds for genocide happening” weird how you slip in and out of frameworks isn’t it? Almost as if my technical accuracy has tainted your restricted framework so much that you’re working between two different frameworks entirely.

maybe Google “fallacy fallacy”, unless you’re still pretending not to know how to Google. :DD)

the fallacious fallacy is a good one. Curiously, i never stated that your argument was wrong due to use of fallacies, i just pointed out that you used fallacy commonly. Because fallacy is a rather weak rhetorical device that can almost always be applied retroactively due to the sheer amount of them out there. Your argument is wrong because it’s fucking bad. Your entire argument rests on the basis of one statement being worded in a specific way, meaning something that it does not. The ONE argument that you have is that “according to the ICJ and UN courts, Israel has “committed genocide”” even though the rulings you cite do not fucking say that.

Israel is a war criminal

wow look, something i’ve agreed up three fucking times, from the first time you mentioned it.

and you are defending it.

please, demonstrate it. This would be libel if it weren’t for the fact that you were demonstrably wrong.

And yet, curiously i’ve not once heard you mention anything else i’ve mentioned that would also count as genocide under your own definition of genocide.

ah cool, still terrible.

I don’t think you are trying to figure out what I mean because I just explained to you what I meant and instead of responding to that, you berated me once again.

bro i literally asked you what you meant by a park and you said almost verbatim “a fucking park dumbass, what the fuck else do you think i mean”

I think what you’re trying to do is find someone to constantly berate to make yourself feel superior and you found someone.

you literally keep responding to me, idk why you’re saying that. You have a family (i assume), clearly im a dumbass that just doesnt understand anything and is trying to piss you off. Then why do you keep responding?

gotta know how shitty your opinions are outside of one thread, how am i suppose to deliver personal attacks if i don’t have a properly documented structure of your behaviors?

Not that i would, because i’m too fucking lazy.

it’s a good thing the entirety of https traffic has encrypted headers than…

Regardless, if it’s properly encrypted it doesn’t matter if they have it, and are able to confirm who it’s from, unless we’re talking about a governmental agency or an org with access to one of those mythical quantum computers. In which case it’s probably a significant portion of future security.

Same reason they’ll probably never codify roe v Wade, it takes away one of their main selling points.

they’ll have to do it next cycle if they’re going to do it on this administration at all. It would be wildly irresponsible to ignore it for the prospect that the 2028 election cycle will be democratic again. Especially if trump is still running.

ok so question then, if the immunity act makes the president criminally immune, how does it not constitute breaking the law as a duty of the president? What the fuck is that supposed to mean otherwise?

idk man “upholding democracy and fair representation” seems awfully familiar to what would be considered an “official action” to me, but what do i fucking know.

for one, fuck republicans if they’re going to do that. You think they care if they start the war or not? They don’t give a shit, they’ll do it if they want to, otherwise they won’t fucking do shit.

secondly, how the fuck does this start the next civil war, trump did vastly more in his time in office, and even outside of office, the supreme court has done more than he has in his entire term. I see no relevance to the republicans here, most of these decisions are just fucking stupid. One of them is unconstitutional (the most recent one)

nice bait lmao

why are we calling them dogs now?

God i fucking hate the little “play on word look at me i’m so clever by engaging in dehumanization” posting.

ah, i think you should catch up a little bit on jreg then. He’s had a similar story arc lmao.

He’s “unironically Jregular now”

it depends on the application, if you’re just serving a static site, or talking on a public chatforum, yeah encryption is pointless.

If you’re talking an SSH tunnel? Yeah no this is stupid.

jreg is pretty based i think. His content is satire, for sure. A lot of his recent stuff has been delving into more philosophical shit though.

Dude literally doxxed himself and asked people to kill him (in lore)

yeah pretty much this. Dealing with one right now, people are funny.

You keep arguing in bad faith, as everyone knows that if you actually wanted to know what “birthright” meant, as if you didn’t already, it’d take you 10 seconds to check it on Google. So asking that is you asking in bad faith. I’m explaining this because I genuinely think you don’t understand it, the proudly ignorant American that you are.

Yeah, i googled it. I still don’t understand what the fuck you meant by the implication of using it though. Which is why i think it’s related to israel or judaism. But i don’t know anything about those two things, so i’m not sure i would be able to recognize what you meant by it, unless you meant my birthright to post shitpost comments on the internet or something? I fail to see how this is relevant though. So i’m assuming it’s some sort of dig at religion that is failing incredibly hard here because i legitimately have no idea what you mean. And you are gaslighting yourself into believing otherwise.

Once again, equivocation on the level that I mostly remember encountering on recess 20 years ago. You said “it says starvation, not genocide”. That’s you pretending that once can’t commit by, among other methods, intentional starvation.

i already covered this, go read what i actually said. This simply isn’t congruent with history, nor does it make any sense in the context providing, because genocide is almost always an explicit violence act against another group of people for no reason other than their ethnicity. Defining it as anything else would include Mao’s famines, and north koreas famines. But weirdly, you don’t seem to be continually puking yourself over the thought of hundreds of thousands of north korean farmers who are currently starving. It’s almost as if you either, only care about the Palestinians, or simply do not actually believe what you are saying, and are simply doing some classic, political posturing here.

Again, because you seem to be incapable of reading, russia is LITERALLY doing the same thing to ukraine. But again, doesn’t seem to matter to you, because apparently ukrainians are less worthy to life than Palestinians according to your complete lack of care about them starving.

You can’t admit to a single piece of evidence of the MOUNTAIN of evidence of war crimes there is against Israel

war crimes against israel? October 7th was considered to be one, but obviously, you misspoke here. And you meant the war crimes that israel is committing, that are being levied against israel. To which, i have agreed too. And you have subsequently, ignored, either because you aren’t reading what i’m posting, even though i’m clearly reading what you post. Or because it simply disentangles your entire narrative here of you being “correct” and it makes you look bad, so in turn you have to save face by pretending they don’t exist.

Or are you just going to pull the “i couldn’t remember” card? Even though it was literally 30 minutes to an hour ago that i said this, and that you read it, in fact, why don’t i go pull it up? “Oh look, another question you haven’t asked yet which btw, yes israel is comitting war crimes, and so has hamas. It’s almost like answering actual questions is, rather easy.”

oh wow, look at that, you literally lied.

You’re scared, willfully ignorant and on the wrong side of history.

i’m on the wrong side of history? Homie, there is no wrong side of history, merely the side that gets written down and archived at some point. Whether this comes to bite in the back later is a different story. The chances of that happening are incredibly small though.

Also i find it rather cute that you keep calling me willfully ignorant, even though i keep explaining to you, that i am quite literally basically ignorant on the topic, because well. I don’t have the fucking time.

pitiful whinging about “both sides”.

oh, you’re the “both sides” type of person, nobody is worse than these type of people. Because they sit in a superiority complex of their own, completely abusing a rather useful concept.

Since you don’t seem to understand how it works, i’ll explain it to you (properly( bothsidesing is a technique commonly used to compare to different groups, in this case opposing parties. Via isolating one side, documenting it’s behaviorisms, and rhetoric. And the repeating the same for the other side, in a similarly isolated manner. And finally, once complete, you can compare them between the two, and what would be expected (in this situation) is a significant overlap in a lot of rhetoric, and a handful of valid underlying causes to the problem. The rhetoric is obviously going to be self determinant. It should be very clear where it is. The underlying structures are going to be hidden within rhetoric most of the time, though apparent.

The problem with most “both sides” ““both sides”” type of people is that they complete forego the entire process of this, and instead do surface level equivocations of two often entirely irrelevant scenarios. Even though this is literally a fundamental fallacy of conceptualization. It’d be like if i said that global warming doesn’t exist because seasons still happen. But of course, you’ve never done this right?

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23128346/11632541

oh, oh no… What a terrible discovery.

That’s why I keep linking things like these

i would also like to point out, that you’re expecting to link the same resources over and over again, while expecting me to do something about it instead. Debate is a two way street my friend, you have done nothing but fence sitting here.

oh and by the way, i find it curious that you accuse me of sealioning, even though you’re literally the one DEMANDING an answer from me, lmao. Go read your definitions better so you can use fallacies properly.

People like you disgust me, but as I don’t want to be as shit of a person as you, I actually reply in good faith. People like you just tie yourself in knots.

my guy, you have done nothing but reiterate the same exact statement you made originally. If anybody here is in bad faith, it’s you because you refuse to interact with any of the premises i propose.

Interesting that you seem to use the “people like you” phrasing. Surely that could never imply anything bad. Surely you don’t have a trained predispoition against people who disagree with you. Do you?

But, since you seem to like fallacy so much, i will indulge you. Notably, you keep using an “appeal to the stone” fallacy. Or more clinically referred to as “proof by assertion” You’re also entertaining an “invincible ignorance fallacy” You will probably engage in “argument of repetition” later on, when in the shower, yelling at me. Also an “argument from silence” fallacy in there. And since you seem to like language so much 'ignoratio elenchi" fallacy as well.

Curious how all of these are “relevance fallacies” isn’t it. Fun fact, a common trap with fallacy is just misapplying them wherever you see fit. Whether that is the case here, or whether your line of behaviorisms uniquely lines you up for this specific type of fallacy, is not up to me, as i don’t like to meander into these kinds of things. It’s rather boring and difficult. It’s more interesting running into the underlying concepts.