I’m not trusting what they say, I’m using the available evidence which indicates no wrongdoing for Clinton and a truck load for Trump so my original comment stands.

There’s no evidence he did anything inappropriate with kids.

Trump, however, has been accused by multiple Epstein victims.

If Trump was able to successfully hide incriminating evidence he would’ve done so for himself.

You wouldn’t need to it’d be plastered everywhere. You don’t think anyone else has looked? So yes it is evidence you do not have anything more than that.

I never said with certainty he was cleared of any wrongdoing. Just that there was no evidence he knew or was involved.

There’s also no evidence he went to the island, all they show is that Clinton flew on one of his foundations donors private 727 on several occasions between 2002 and 2003, primarily for Clinton Foundation humanitarian work in Africa, Europe, and Asia.

And he was deposed and testified in front of congress a few weeks ago. Far more than can be said for any of the actual suspected pedophiles based on the released info.

I have read them check my post history.

If you had read them and there was anything incriminating like there is for Trump you would’ve said that instead of repeating the flying on his plane thing again.

riiight…but they contain plenty of incriminating information about Trump. Where’s the incriminating information about Clinton?

He didn’t need to, but he was not a known pedophile, and the travel was tied publicly tied to Clinton foundation work like the 2002 Africa trip for HIV/AIDS.

Again, you think Trump hid evidence of Clinton’s wrongdoings but published damning things on himself?

Correct. Epstein had connections to his charities. Was for humanitarian work.

You think Trump released the files with more evidence of him fucking kids than Clinton if there was any other option?

Ireland?

There’s no evidence he did anything inappropriate with kids.

Trump, however, has been accused by multiple Epstein victims.

Not related to this.

NVIDIA shield is still king.

That’s not fair, it’s also an excuse for violence.

Actually it’s the most effective way.

I read a great biography of William Lloyd Garrison (the American abolitionist) a couple of years ago and it made it clear how he, and other radicals, dramatically changed the course of history through their constant focus and activism on how slavery was wrong. Their radicalism shifted the middle. That’s what “extreme” views do, they make it easier for people in the middle to move towards embracing justice.

We (most of us) don’t remember all the people who said “Yeah, slavery is wrong but we have to be practical,” or “I would like to end slavery but we have to compensate owners,” or “But what will we do with all the black people?” These were real positions within the anti-slavery movement. When Garrison began his career, they were the dominant positions and he spent much of his career being vilified by gradualists who thought he was too extreme.

They wanted to end slavery “someday.” And they didn’t want those who claimed to own other humans to be too uncomfortable. We don’t remember gradualists today. We remember the men and women with the courage and ethical wisdom to look at slavery and say “This is wrong. It needs to stop.” And their “extremism” is part of why it did stop, because the moral pressure they exerted made the South conclude it was inevitable that slavery would end unless they broke free of the Union.

I think we have to be careful in drawing parallels between veganism and past social justice movements, but there is a valuable lesson for us here. We can serve animals by not being in the middle because by being extreme, we can change what the middle even is. Today it is becoming mainstream to critique things like gestation crates or foie gras. We did that. We changed the middle. (This “we,” obviously, is broad).

&

• Baby-steps are shown to undermine support for more effective measures

Most western cultures think that they’ve experienced moral progress over time. These aren’t mere intuitions, however, as these observations often admit of some deep analysis. For example, some argue that our modern liberal intuitions (e.g. everyone is born free, etc.) are grounded in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was responding to earlier moral philosophy and was responded to himself in turn. Kant distilled these intuitions into a rigorous metaphysics of moral philosophy, which was still used quite actively well into the 70s.

Now, philosophers don’t think that ‘views have changed, therefore there is no truth.’ Instead, they realize that good analysis of these earlier arguments reveals that they’re close to right but skate around some important moral issues that can be unpacked with analysis. There’s truth that can be found. It appears to all the relevant experts that moral thought is developing in a way that’s strongly analogous to mathematical or natural scientific thought.

These are some of the reasons that subjectivism and relativism are extremely unpopular among experts.

Although we can observe and say that although there are people who have different moral systems than us, such as psychopaths and Spartans; we can actually scientifically evaluate the merits of the competing moral systems and their objective performance in the long run and historically. Historically, evolution has shown that altruistic humans are indeed “fitter” and objectively, game theory has shown that cooperative strategies are objectively better than selfish strategies in the long run.

You don’t need examples or have to worry about cherry-picking. They’re not ours to use. You can’t humanely take a life of something that doesn’t want to die.

Consider that neither the wish to be free from suffering nor the wish to continue existing is unique to our species; these interests are shared by all sentient animals, and indeed can be seen as fundamental biological drives. And if my interest in not being harmed or killed makes it wrong to harm or kill me when harming or killing me can be avoided, then an animal’s interest in not being harmed or killed makes it likewise wrong for us to harm or kill animals when doing so can be avoided.