The DeSantis gambit

[ponderingturtle]

The Roberts volksgerichtshof would have to invalidate its own Hobby Lobby and Citizens United rulings.

Hypocrisy is a flex not a flaw to republicans.

 

[wareyin]

Don't you think that the deal The Villages have gives them an unfair advantage over over retirement communities that don't got their own Special District?

Unless they criticize Dear Leader, no opinion will be had on that.

 

[Stacyhs]

Again, I don't care about his motives.

The end results justify everything, right? Even if that means doing so from blatant personal pettiness and, more importantly, by violating the First Amendment and by weaponizing the government for political retaliation.

Hmm. Curious.

 

[Ziggurat]

The end results justify everything, right?

There's a reason that's not the common phrase. The common phrase is, the ends justify the means. Not motives, not "everything", but specifically means. Because it's the means which can cause problems that can be worse than the benefit of the ends.

What was the means here? An act of Florida legislation? Well, that was always going to be the means by which to change RCID. RCID was created by Florida legislation, changing it by Florida legislation is entirely appropriate.

 

[Upchurch]

If you regard Donald Trump as a uniquely toxic and dangerous threat to the nation, should we starting considering backing Ron DeSantis?

Honestly, DeSantis has been collecting his own brand of toxic baggage and posing a proportionally similar threat to Florida (because most of them let him). I’m not sure I see the benefit.

 

[autumn1971]

plenty of other entities have a similar deal in Florida.
But those are pro-Santis and therefore safe from retaliation.

like The villages.

******* thank you. Zig is just arguing dishonestly and he is aware of it.
There are almost 2000 other deals like what Disney got and he pretends they haven’t been mentioned or even existed. For **** sake the doublethink oozes out of his posts in this thread.

 

[autumn1971]

Each district is different, so that means nothing.
And no other entity brings as much revenue to Florida as Disney, so getting a unique deal is a no-brainer int he interest of Florida.
No one forced Florida to give Disney the privileges.


Don't you think that the deal The Villages have gives them an unfair advantage over over retirement communities that don't got their own Special District?

The ******* villages ***** get to drive golf cart on the ******* highway!
I’m not even allowed to do Gawd’s obviously intended work by taking the ******** out

 

[Stacyhs]

There's a reason that's not the common phrase. The common phrase is, the ends justify the means. Not motives, not "everything", but specifically means. Because it's the means which can cause problems that can be worse than the benefit of the ends.

Thanks for mansplaining that very common saying. If I had meant "the end justifies the means", I'd have said that. I said, and meant, "The end results justify everything, right?" because you said "Again, I don't care about his motives. I was not talking about the means but about his motives.

What was the means here? An act of Florida legislation? Well, that was always going to be the means by which to change RCID. RCID was created by Florida legislation, changing it by Florida legislation is entirely appropriate.

Irrelevant as it had zero to do with my statement about DeSantis' motive (retaliation), not the means by which he implemented his petty punishment.

ETA: Your misdirection did not hide the fact that you never addressed my actual point: "The end results justify everything, right?"

 

[Ziggurat]

No one forced Florida to give Disney the privileges.

True. But likewise, no one should force them to keep giving Disney those privileges. What Florida granted, Florida can take back.

Don't you think that the deal The Villages have gives them an unfair advantage over over retirement communities that don't got their own Special District?

Quite likely. But I don't demand that we maintain one unfairness just because we haven't gotten rid of all unfairness.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for mansplaining that very common saying. If I had meant "the end justifies the means", I'd have said that. I said, and meant, "The end results justify everything, right?" because you said "Again, I don't care about his motives. I was not talking about the means but about his motives.

I know you were talking about motives. And I was pointing out why that was a nonsensical argument to make. It has the superficial form of another common argument, but none of its substance. And you couldn't even understand the explanation.

 

[Stacyhs]

I know you were talking about motives. And I was pointing out why that was a nonsensical argument to make. It has the superficial form of another common argument, but none of its substance. And you couldn't even understand the explanation.

No, you did not. There is a distinct difference between a motive for doing something and the means by which you do it. You can gaslight yourself, but you're not gaslighting me. Stop digging.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, you did not. There is a distinct difference between a motive for doing something and the means by which you do it.

No ****, Sherlock. That's the whole point of what I was saying: motive isn't means. Means matter. I care about means. Motives don't really matter. I don't care about motives.

You can gaslight yourself, but you're not gaslighting me. Stop digging.

Yeah, that's not gaslighting. That's just you not figuring things out.

 

[Stacyhs]

No ****, Sherlock. That's the whole point of what I was saying: motive isn't means.

I've never said it was. In fact, I was very clear when I wrote, "I was not talking about the means but about his motives."

Means matter. I care about means. Motives don't really matter. I don't care about motives.

I never brought up the means, only his motives. You are the one who went into the means:

"What was the means here? An act of Florida legislation? Well, that was always going to be the means by which to change RCID. RCID was created by Florida legislation, changing it by Florida legislation is entirely appropriate."

The MEANS of how DeSantis attempted to remove Disney's control has not been the point of debate; it's been about WHY he did so (his MOTIVES). Has anyone argued that DeSantis' MEANS ..."changing it by Florida legislation" (as you said) is inappropriate or somehow illegal? No.

Yeah, that's not gaslighting. That's just you not figuring things out.

I'd say you're the one not 'figuring things out." And yeah, trying to convince me that I'm the one not 'figuring things out" is classic gaslighting.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've never said it was. In fact, I was very clear when I wrote, "I was not talking about the means but about his motives."

I know. I've known from the start. The fact that you were only talking about motive was the whole point. And I was contrasting that with means, which I never claimed you brought up, because means matter but motives don't. That's why I brought up means. God damn, but you're bad at reading comprehension.

 

[Stacyhs]

I know. I've known from the start. The fact that you were only talking about motive was the whole point.

Then WHY did you feel it necessary to mansplain to me the meaning of "The ends justify the means" when I was NEVER talking about the means as you've admitted?

And I was contrasting that with means, which I never claimed you brought up, because means matter but motives don't.

And that was exactly MY point: motives DO matter which is why I asked "The end results justify everything, right?" As I said, the point of debate in this thread was never the means, it was always the motives.

Again: why did you feel it was necessary to bring up the means when I was only referring to the motives?

This was my first response to you:

The end results justify everything, right? Even if that means doing so from blatant personal pettiness and, more importantly, by violating the First Amendment and by weaponizing the government for political retaliation.

Where in that do I mention or refer to HOW the LEGISLATURE attempted to remove Disney's powers? It's all about DeSantis' MOTIVE.

That's why I brought up means. God damn, but you're bad at reading comprehension.

Look in a mirror. Go ahead and have the last word now. I'm not interested in going around and around with you repeating the same things in order to "win".

 

[The Great Zaganza]

True. But likewise, no one should force them to keep giving Disney those privileges. What Florida granted, Florida can take back.



Quite likely. But I don't demand that we maintain one unfairness just because we haven't gotten rid of all unfairness.

What you are saying is that you are fine with Disney being singled out for punishment.

 

[Ziggurat]

What you are saying is that you are fine with Disney being singled out for punishment.

I don't consider it punishment, because it's not a benefit they deserved in the first place.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then WHY did you feel it necessary to mansplain to me the meaning of "The ends justify the means" when I was NEVER talking about the means as you've admitted?

I just told you: to contrast something meaningful (which you didn't say) with something meaningless (which you did say). Honestly, try to keep up.

And that was exactly MY point: motives DO matter

But you can't say why.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't consider it punishment, because it's not a benefit they deserved in the first place.

and neither does anyone else.

Hence it is a punishment.

 

[bruto]

I don't consider it punishment, because it's not a benefit they deserved in the first place.

First of all, the very public reason given for withdrawing the benefit was not anything to do with either the genesis of the benefit or a violation of its terms. It was quite clearly stated as retaliation for a perceived offense by the parent corporation, with no direct relation to the benefit.

And whether you think it's just or unjust, proper or improper, that's exactly what a punishment is, and what distinguishes it from simple restitution.