this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
374 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4131 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

House Republicans moved to reduce Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s salary to $1, as lawmakers debate spending bills ahead of the government funding deadline next week.

The salary cut for Buttigieg was put forth by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and adopted by voice vote as an amendment to the 2024 Transpiration and Housing and Urban Development spending bill.

“Pete Buttigieg doesn’t do his job. It’s all about fake photo ops and taxpayer-funded private jet trip to accept LGBTQ awards for him,” Green posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “I’m happy my amendment passed, but he doesn’t deserve a single penny.”

The underlying bill needs to be approved by the full House and is unlikely to be approved by the Senate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, the burden of proof is upon the person making the unprovable claim. I claimed nothing.

Just because a claim fits your bias makes it no less an unsupported belief than anyone else's unsupported belief.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, you can't prove a negative whether it's true or not. The positive claim, which is unproven and therefore to be deemed false, is the existence of your magical master being.

Try brushing up on the nature of proof and the scientific method before you embarrass yourself further.

[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then it is a belief. And you can prove negatives, just not grandiose ones. I can prove there is no salt in a solution. But until I prove it, that is a belief and not a given. The fact that the scale is the entirety of Reality makes no difference in the applicable Scientific proof required from the claimant. Negativity or affirmity is irrelevant. A claim which can't be proven is a belief and nothing more.

Try brushing up on the argument you are attempting to make. Your desperation to argue against a claim you assume I believe has you floundering. There was no positive claim. The negative claim made was made in an attempt to reinforce their weak faith by forcing it upon others. Just because your equally weak faith can't survive others not agreeing makes the negative claim no less a belief. It remains nothing more than your belief no matter how hard you stamp your feet and demand others must prove you wrong or accept your unsupported claim. Simply not how it works.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then it is a belief.

Or more precisely a delusion

And you can prove negatives, just not grandiose ones

Nope. That's simply not how proof works. You can statistically prove something to be unlikely, but you can't prove without a doubt that something isn't the case.

until I prove it, that is a belief and not a given.

No. Not believing in your invisible sky daddy is by definition the opposite of belief. A lack of belief is a kind of belief like no car is a kind of car.

And that's how much I'm gonna entertain your lunacy. I was about to adress all your other falsehoods, but life's too short to spend too much of it arguing with religious zealots who think they're making logical sense.

[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your insistence upon arguing against what no one claimed is insurmountable. Perhaps when you've got enough faith in your own belief system, you'll be able to engage with others. Until then go ahead and stamp your feet all you need.