The Brazilian Trump

[iu_a_att]

The Trump, Putin, Kim axis may be about to add a new member.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...obic-mismogynist-racist-brazil-jair-bolsonaro

Many people in Brazil cannot bring themselves to utter the name of the rightwing extremist expected to win the first round of voting in the country’s presidential election on Sunday. On social networks, the former army officer Jair Bolsonaro is often referred to simply as “the thing”.

To understand why Bolsonaro evokes such dread, consider some of the things he has said in the last few years:

• “I had four sons, but then I had a moment of weakness, and the fifth was a girl.”

• “I’m not going to rape you, because you’re very ugly” – to a female representative in Congress.

• “I’d rather have my son die in a car accident than have him show up dating some guy.”

• “I’m pro-torture, and the people are too.”

• “They don’t do anything. I don’t think they’re even good for procreation any more” – referring to quilombolas, the black descendants of rebel African slaves.

• “You can be sure that if I get there [the presidency], there’ll be no money for NGOs. If it’s up to me, every citizen will have a gun at home. Not one centimetre will be demarcated for indigenous reserves or quilombolas.”

• “You won’t change anything in this country through voting – nothing, absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, you’ll only change things by having a civil war and doing the work the military regime didn’t do. Killing 30,000, starting with FHC [former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso]. Killing. If a few innocent people die, that’s alright.”
​

https://www.apnews.com/66444c23902c...n=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

• “I’m pro-torture, and the people are too.”

I don't view this as such a bad thing

• “You won’t change anything in this country through voting – nothing, absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, you’ll only change things by having a civil war and doing the work the military regime didn’t do. Killing 30,000, starting with FHC [former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso]. Killing. If a few innocent people die, that’s alright.”

 

[iu_a_att]

I don't view this as such a bad thing

You are pro-torture?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

You are pro-torture?

For criminals of certain crimes that have admitted guilt, yes.

 

[cosmickid]

For criminals of certain crimes that have admitted guilt, yes.

He's not referring to "criminals".Right wing juntas in South and Central America did not torture "criminals". Unless you define believing in democracy and fighting for social justice "criminal"...

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

He's not referring to "criminals".Right wing juntas in South and Central America did not torture "criminals". Unless you define believing in democracy and fighting for social justice "criminal"...

Well then I wouldn't support it. I can't read any of the articles as my Portuguese is weak.

 

[sglowrider]

For criminals of certain crimes that have admitted guilt, yes.

 

[Standard Issue]

I was concerned this thread was going to be about some peculiar undercarriage trimming technique. Maybe involving cheetos colored hair dye and some form of a weird comb over.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

View embedded media

I thought Asians love torture?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I thought Asians love torture?

Depends on if you paid your $2.50 or not

 

[iuwclurker]

For criminals of certain crimes that have admitted guilt, yes.

In a nutshell, that's why you're stuck in your head.

 

[Rockfish1]

For criminals of certain crimes that have admitted guilt, yes.

That's nuts.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

That's nuts.

Why?

 

[Rockfish1]

Why?

I'm reminded of a conversation I once had with my son, who was demanding that I explain why it was important that he get his high school degree. But torture is both unconstitutional and a war crime, and it's also barbaric, counter-productive, deeply wrong, and corrosive to any organization that engages in it.

 

[T.M.P.]

Why?

1. It's evil.
2. It doesn't work.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I'm reminded of a conversation I once had with my son, who was demanding that I explain why it was important that he get his high school degree. But torture is both unconstitutional and a war crime, and it's also barbaric, counter-productive, deeply wrong, and corrosive to any organization that engages in it.

Those who engage in similar behavior deserve that treatment. I'm guessing you'd feel differently if your son suffered as a result of their actions.

 

[Rockfish1]

Those who engage in similar behavior deserve that treatment. I'm guessing you'd feel differently if your son suffered as a result of their actions.

I hope I wouldn’t feel differently, but there’s a reason we don’t allow enraged fathers to determine what’s allowed.

 

[iu_a_att]

I'm reminded of a conversation I once had with my son, who was demanding that I explain why it was important that he get his high school degree. But torture is both unconstitutional and a war crime, and it's also barbaric, counter-productive, deeply wrong, and corrosive to any organization that engages in it.

Well put with minimal snark...

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I hope I wouldn’t feel differently, but there’s a reason we don’t allow enraged fathers to determine what’s allowed.

Well we just view human rights from a different lens. I'm of the belief that you lose yours once you take someone else's.

But there's no way either of us is changing their mind so no point in arguing about it.

 

[iuwclurker]

Why?

What you're missing here is the understanding that the world is your world, humanity is your humanity, every person is your person. In essence, what you're saying is that you have chosen to conceive of yourself as smaller than you actually are. You've shrunk yourself down to maybe you, your family and possibly a few friends. I doubt you even really care about your customers, they're just opportunities to make money. You might argue that you're only not caring about people who commit crimes or whatever but your posting tends to speak otherwise.

 

[Rockfish1]

Well we just view human rights from a different lens. I'm of the belief that you lose yours once you take someone else's.

But there's no way either of us is changing their mind so no point in arguing about it.

The difference is that your view is embodied in your amoral conscience, and my view is embodied in the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and basically all works of humanity. The pro-torture-because-we're-pissed-as-hell view is difficult to locate for favorable treatment in the pantheon of modern Western Literature, for example.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

The difference is that your view is embodied in your amoral conscience, and my view is embodied in the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and basically all works of humanity. The pro-torture-because-we're-pissed-as-hell view is difficult to locate for favorable treatment in the pantheon of modern Western Literature, for example.

Just because the law says something doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

What you're missing here is the understanding that the world is your world, humanity is your humanity, every person is your person. In essence, what you're saying is that you have chosen to conceive of yourself as smaller than you actually are. You've shrunk yourself down to maybe you, your family and possibly a few friends. I doubt you even really care about your customers, they're just opportunities to make money. You might argue that you're only not caring about people who commit crimes or whatever but your posting tends to speak otherwise.

Your gibberish is stupid and nonsensical. In other words, lurker being lurker.

 

[iuwclurker]

Your gibberish is stupid and nonsensical. In other words, lurker being lurker.

I understand.

 

[Rockfish1]

Just because the law says something doesn't mean I agree with it.

That is your right. But when you reject the most fundamental principles of civilization, you must consider the possibility that you are a sociopath. This would make you not just unlike the rest of us, but from the perspective of the rest of us, dangerously unlike the rest of us, to the extent that you act on your aberrant morality.

How are you with pets?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

That is your right. But when you reject the most fundamental principles of civilization, you must consider the possibility that you are a sociopath. This would make you not just unlike the rest of us, but from the perspective of the rest of us, dangerously unlike the rest of us, to the extent that you act on your aberrant morality.

How are you with pets?

Taking away someone else's rights, including their right to live, means the perpetrator has violated their rights afforded to them under the constitution, including the eighth amendment. That's not how it is practiced, but that's how I interpret logical equivalence.

Love dogs, can't do cats (allergies), ambivalent about the others.

 

[iu_a_att]

That is your right. But when you reject the most fundamental principles of civilization, you must consider the possibility that you are a sociopath. This would make you not just unlike the rest of us, but from the perspective of the rest of us, dangerously unlike the rest of us, to the extent that you act on your aberrant morality.

How are you with pets?

I think a takeaway from elections since 2000 is that Jamie's "morality" is a great, great deal less aberrant than one might hope. Indeed, if we were to call Jamie a "strong reciprocater" [someone who enjoys rewarding people who he regards as helpful and punishing people who he regards as unhelpful--an altruist of sorts] Ernst Fehr and coauthors suggest a very large minority of the human population may qualify. Eye-for-an-eye types seem like a plausible sub-genus. Naturally, the thoughtless support for torture, no matter how popular it might be, does not mean that it is either ethical, legal or good public policy. Thought I should add that point in case Aloha were to show up in this thread and argue that torturing prisoners should be policy because it is popular in polls.

 

[Rockfish1]

Taking away someone else's rights, including their right to live, means the perpetrator has violated their rights afforded to them under the constitution, including the eighth amendment. That's not how it is practiced, but that's how I interpret logical equivalence.

Love dogs, can't do cats (allergies), ambivalent about the others.

I agree that's how you "interpret logical equivalence." I'm suggesting there's a screw loose in your logical equivalency function.