|
Also, go dump some molten iron in your pisshole Jrod, you disingenuous, misanthropic, monster of a corpse fucker. Like someone said a while back: your philosophy is fit for corpses only
BaurusJA fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Feb 2, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What you are suggesting is that if two or more individuals come to a mutually agreeable transaction on the market that you disapprove of, you think it is justified to kidnap one or more of them and throw them in a cage. I wonder what they'd call that in Latin? So what about all the questions you're ignoring, jrode? Have you declined to create joinder or are you only interested in preaching your faith to the heathens?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is a gross fallacy to think that in the complex world of medicine and health care that any group of individuals, even if motivated by pure intentions, is capable of accurately determining which drug or treatment is efficacious and which is not is absurd on the face of it. jrodefeld posted:Such an institution would doubtless be subject to external pressure by established interests whose profits would be threatened by newcomers into the market. Corruption would abound.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Oh my lord, I missed that in the course of mocking him. Is he seriously proposing that clinical trials are impossible because the profit motive would inevitably corrupt the findings and that therefore the only solution is to let everyone pour all the snake oil and opium tinctures possible directly into their ballsacks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Jrod, the better question is why would should we surrender to you? I'm not afraid of you Jrod. You can't force me to accept Libertarianism, and Statism rules supreme. We have no need to meet you in the middle on anything. It is you who has to sacrifice what you want to work with us. We don't need your approval to have the FDA do its job, it works pretty well as is, and the only area for improvement involves giving the FDA more funds and more authority. jrod already tries to do this, someone awhile ago went and sought out jrod's posts on other parts of the Internet and on more conservative boards his posts take a more traditional conservative slant. This is why people accuse him of being an evanglist who isn't really interested in debate; he's here to convert, not to discuss. Jrod wants so desperately for you to believe that libertarianism is closely allied with progressivism and that really he's the true liberal, and he thinks that if he can just phrase the argument correctly then maybe he'll pick up a few converts and then Ron Paul will let jrod into his libertarian doomsday bunker that he keeps fully stocked with purestrain gold, listeria-infected ice cream, and child prostitutes (don't worry, they all consented!) What you're reading here is jrod trying to turn his abhorrent ideology into something that he thinks might be palatable to a progressive. It works about as well as trying to turn a pile of wet dog poo poo into champagne, but he's doing his best anyway
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay, so you support the entire War on Drugs, right? Consumers need to be protected from themselves, don't they? Ah, I see. The ways in which your life has thus far failed to live up to your dreams were caused by your lack of intelligence. Our market-based society has judged you, rightly, unable to produce work of value. Any marginalization you've experienced is due to the free and rational choices of individuals you were able to get through to, who were able to see the limits of your ability. You've really helped me understand why Libertarianism is not and will never be an ideology of the ruling-classes. People like you can find each other, and form friendships and little tribes, but they're not mentally equipped to achieve real levels of wealth and power. Our political systems are too complicated for that, too cognitively demanding. I mean, if you actually understood politics well and cared deeply about the human cost of the war on drugs, you could have already done many things about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Today I learned that the government prosecuting those who knowingly profit from selling useless or dangerous medicine and lying about it is exactly the same as locking someone up for decades because they did a little weed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Its like he saw Sanders in Iowa and sat up in a cold fevered swear and said to himself "Maybe I'm not too late!" Jrod how much product do you move that you have a federal tax liability? RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay, so you support the entire War on Drugs, right? Consumers need to be protected from themselves, don't they? Wow It's amazing how you can take something like "we should protect consumers from the con men that want to rob them" and spin it around into "we should lock people up for smoking pot". That's an absurd leap in logic. jrodefeld posted:What you are suggesting is that if two or more individuals come to a mutually agreeable transaction on the market that you disapprove of, you think it is justified to kidnap one or more of them and throw them in a cage. If one of these individuals promised the other to cure his illnesses with magic, then yes, I think that the con man should be thrown in a cage so that he can't steal money from more people. And you think so, too, except that your preferred cage would be the man's own home. He wouldn't be able to leave or do business with anyone and would definitely die, by your own explanation of your ideal world, but you're going to claim to have the moral high ground anyway despite supporting what is effectively the death penalty for any minor offense. You support putting people in cages for all sorts of reasons, you just call it something else and then erroneously claim that it was all voluntary. jrodefeld posted:It is a gross fallacy to think that in the complex world of medicine and health care that any group of individuals, even if motivated by pure intentions, is capable of accurately determining which drug or treatment is efficacious and which is not is absurd on the face of it. Such an institution would doubtless be subject to external pressure by established interests whose profits would be threatened by newcomers into the market. Corruption would abound. 1) We successfully do this all the time, I know that you're not a scientist but it is possible (with science) to accurately determine which drug or treatment is efficacious and which is not. The process for doing this is far from perfect, but with enough testing we can say with some pretty good certainty what the effects and side effects of various drugs are and whether treatments are effective, ineffective, or pointless. 2) Despite being subject to corrupting influences, we still manage to do a pretty decent job of keeping bad poo poo off of the market. See thalidomide, a real-world example of the FDA keeping a drug with seriously bad side effects and almost no positive benefit off of the market. This has been brought up to you like a dozen times and I don't think that you've ever acknowledged it. quote:What a civilized person would do, if they were truly concerned, would be to advise people of which products and services were worthwhile and which were not but never to forcefully prevent a voluntary transaction from taking place. If you want to get high on cocaine, no problem; go to Peru and you can totally do that. You just can't do it on US soil. It's all voluntary, you agree to follow the social contract so long as you voluntarily remain here. If you decide to break the social contract then you face a punishment that society deems suitable. If you want to sell snake oil to people while claiming that it's a panacea, no problem, you just can't do it here (well, you can if you call it a dietary supplement instead of a medicine). If you go away, you can go ahead and do that. If you stay here and do it anyway, then you voluntarily accept the potential repercussions. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
I am pretty okay with taking people who sold thalidomide despite knowing its side effects or people who sell ethylene glycol based cough syrup and throwing them in a cage, that sounds better than deformed or dead children  But I guess only barbarians believe in drug trials and studies that can show bad effects on protein formation, in other words statist witchcraft VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
jrod if someone sold me cancer medicine that turned out to be Zima, I would 100% want to go on a rampage and kill them and anyone who worked with them. Would it be aggression if I did that? Didn't they aggress against me first, basically trying to kill me for my money, so wouldn't I be within my rights to
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
It's starting to seem like libertopia is founded on a whole hell of a lot of tiny, fragile bones, often twisted by horrible chemicals in the process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Oh my lord, I missed that in the course of mocking him. Is he seriously proposing that clinical trials are impossible because the profit motive would inevitably corrupt the findings and that therefore the only solution is to let everyone pour all the snake oil and opium tinctures possible directly into their ballsacks? Right. Come on jrodefeld, even Von Mises admitted empiricism and the scientific method have been a phenomenal success in the natural sciences, not even he was willing to entertain the absurdity of subjective truth in biochemistry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
If the profit motive makes knowledge impossible, perhaps it should be abolished. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod if someone sold me cancer medicine that turned out to be Zima, I would 100% want to go on a rampage and kill them and anyone who worked with them. Would it be aggression if I did that? Didn't they aggress against me first, basically trying to kill me for my money, so wouldn't I be within my rights to It would be within the Terms of Enrampagement, which you sign when joining up with a DRO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
It's endlessly amusing that the FDA is too vulnerable to corruption by profit-seeking companies therefore say the Libertarians, we should abolish it and let the profit-seekers pay did evaluators directly  This has to be the clumsiest attempt I've seen to win over progressives, right up there with "the rich influence the justice system so help me get rid of it so the rich can own the armies and courts directly"
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's endlessly amusing that the FDA is too vulnerable to corruption by profit-seeking companies therefore say the Libertarians, we should abolish it and let the profit-seekers pay did evaluators directly
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It seems like there's no way libertopia does not cause gigadeaths. If you wanted to make the argument of, "Yeah, it'd kill most of humanity BUT the survivors will be way happier and I'm prepared to accept that I and my kin might not make it through the Time of Doom" at least you're being honest. I'm reasonably certain that it'd violate the Categorical Imperative, though. E: Also, since JRode said he'd go back and read some posts to respond to? Here's one, yet again. I've lost count, really, but I think this is the fifth or sixth time I'm putting this up. TLM3101 posted:
TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
The obvious answer to this question would be "all the employees," possibly in somewhat different degrees but for the purpose of this featureless plain, let's say equally. If Carl is an active participant in the operations of the firm then he is also partially responsible for that profit. What would seem to be a fair distribution of the spoils would be share and share alike. If one individual is unusually essential then perhaps they could be voted a share and a half, or two shares. Perhaps as the founder Carl deserves two shares. In that case the pot would be divided into seven equal shares and Carl would get two, everyone else would get one. This system or a loose approximation seems to arise organically, with the greatest examples of course being the gentlemen of fortune upon the Spanish Main. Now of course eventually this can develop into the joint stock corporation and modern society complete with a shareholder theory of value, but it would seem that workplace democracy could in principle control this... of course, workplace democracy can also be bribed ("you're leaving town at the end of the year? well how about we vote to change the rules, Bill, and I'll cut you a check if you back me up - won't be any skin off your nose") and people may not necessarily get along either. Perhaps the DROs could provide some kind of neutral arbitrartion with penalties for violations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd also like to have this particular question answered since it has been pretty much ignored even though I have brought it up multiple times before. Kant literally Did Not Get Out Much
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:It would be within the Terms of Enrampagement, which you sign when joining up with a DRO. QuarkJets posted:It's amazing how you can take something like "we should protect consumers from the con men that want to rob them" and spin it around into "we should lock people up for smoking pot". That's an absurd leap in logic. GunnerJ posted:In the interest of productive reform of a broken system, here is a proposal that neither produces nor fixes anything:
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is a gross fallacy to think that in the complex world of medicine and health care that any group of individuals, even if motivated by pure intentions, is capable of accurately determining which drug or treatment is efficacious and which is not is absurd on the face of it. Such an institution would doubtless be subject to external pressure by established interests whose profits would be threatened by newcomers into the market. Corruption would abound. Welp, it's not perfect, so you might as well not try. Hey, you, basketball players. Stop shooting. You might miss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Welp, it's not perfect, so you might as well not try. I doubt jrode would be upset about a lot of black people suddenly being made unemployed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay, so you support the entire War on Drugs, right? Consumers need to be protected from themselves, don't they? Frankly, and I don't say this lightly, you are a barbarian and a savage. What you are suggesting is that if two or more individuals come to a mutually agreeable transaction on the market that you disapprove of, you think it is justified to kidnap one or more of them and throw them in a cage. You must support prohibition of alcohol also, right? All kinds of people develop alcoholism and drink way too much. Don't we need to protect people from themselves? Oh, wow. Oh, wow. It's better than I could have even imagined. You know what? I'm going to double down on this, and I'll probably be the only one in the thread, but hey. I am totally down with the intent of the War on Drugs. People shouldn't do mind-altering chemicals that distort their perception of reality. Pretty much period. Willing to make concessions under some circumstances like medical marijuana (under the argument that removing pain allows them to perceive reality more accurately, same argument as, say, anti-depressants), but I do not morally support recreational use. IF locking people who used drugs up and throwing them in jail served as an effective deterrent to stop others from doing so, I would support it. The fact that it doesn't makes it more complicated. As it is, I would support a pivot to mandatory treatment over straight-up legalization for anything besides marijuana. The ultimate goal is to make people safer: right now, in our current climate, it is much safer to legalize and regulate marijuana than it is to just let people at it. Drugs are bad, and our society should make every attempt to stop people from doing them. In this case, education is better than jail time. But I do not give a drat about people's ~inherent moral right~ to smoke a joint. Oh, and everything you said is an enormous logical fallacy that makes an absurd number of assumptions about what people believe. Just FYI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay, so you support the entire War on Drugs, right? Consumers need to be protected from themselves, don't they? Frankly, and I don't say this lightly, you are a barbarian and a savage. Frankly, and I don't say this lightly, you're human loving garbage who supports people literally dying in the streets in agonizing and horrific pain. I literally cannot give a gently caress if a piece of poo poo like you thinks someone is a "barbarian" knowing the horrific poo poo you gleefully support. Your heroes are nothing but racist, sexist, and generally bigoted pseudo-intellectuals who, like you, have contributed absolutely nothing to the betterment of mankind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Okay, so you support the entire War on Drugs, right? Yes, if by "War on Drugs" you mean "letting the government regulate the production and sale of many now-illegal recreational drugs the same way it does alcohol and tobacco."
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
I support full legalisation of drugs with strong regulation for harmful ones - potentially only allowing things like heroin etc. via prescription to current addicts with an intention to wean them off with time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It's like some kind of... reduction... to the point of absurdity, of his argument. This isn't actually a fallacy, though. It's a completely legitimate debate tactic to show that your opponent's position has absurd implications. It's just that he's doing it wrong because he can't actually show that support for FDA regulations implies support for the War on Drugs in the name of consumer protection because the problem with one and not the other comes down to their different methods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod already tries to do this, someone awhile ago went and sought out jrod's posts on other parts of the Internet and on more conservative boards his posts take a more traditional conservative slant. This is why people accuse him of being an evanglist who isn't really interested in debate; he's here to convert, not to discuss. Jrod wants so desperately for you to believe that libertarianism is closely allied with progressivism and that really he's the true liberal, and he thinks that if he can just phrase the argument correctly then maybe he'll pick up a few converts and then Ron Paul will let jrod into his libertarian doomsday bunker that he keeps fully stocked with purestrain gold, listeria-infected ice cream, and child prostitutes (don't worry, they all consented!) I can't find it anymore for the life of me,* but this is an actual tactic that Reason or some other libertarian rag advised its readers to take, calling it something like "political drag," i.e., dressing up as something you are not to fit in. "Putting on" your left-liberal garb in the morning and "changing into" conservatism in the afternoon. *eta, nope, here it is actually, "political cross-dressing" apparently: https://www.unz.org/Pub/Reason-1977dec-00020?View=PDF GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
That feels like something that only works on dumb people. Which might explain why Libertarians like it as an idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
If so, it's pretty telling when they're willing to admit defeat: it doesn't work on liberals.  Anyway, I found the original, it is literally called "How To Get Converts Left & Right," lmao.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:That feels like something that only works on dumb people. When you think all your opponents disagree with you because they just don't understand your ideas yet, it makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:jrod already tries to do this, someone awhile ago went and sought out jrod's posts on other parts of the Internet and on more conservative boards his posts take a more traditional conservative slant. This is why people accuse him of being an evanglist who isn't really interested in debate; he's here to convert, not to discuss. Jrod wants so desperately for you to believe that libertarianism is closely allied with progressivism and that really he's the true liberal, and he thinks that if he can just phrase the argument correctly then maybe he'll pick up a few converts and then Ron Paul will let jrod into his libertarian doomsday bunker that he keeps fully stocked with purestrain gold, listeria-infected ice cream, and child prostitutes (don't worry, they all consented!) The best part was that when confronted with the posts from the conservative forum Jrod's response was something along the lines of "Well obviously I was lying to the conservatives because I'm for really-real a True LiberalTM!" which was as transparent as it was pathetic. Jrod has no thoughts of his own, and everything he posts shows it. I mean, his latest shitpost-and-runs involved an exhaustive list of people he has to think for him. He was saying "Respect these people, and by extension respect me" because he's built his entire personality and sense of self around other people. I'm willing to bet that even his post about "Support the FDA, do you? Well I bet you also support the War on Drugs too!  " is simply paraphrased from an article written by one of the many bigots on his list of heroes. Think back on it, it's not at all surprising that someone who does nothing but intellectually steal and copy from other people is trying to make a living selling movies he's stolen too. In short, Jrod you need to learn to think for yourself, you pathetic loving manchild.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Are you familiar with Emmanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative? Okay maybe Jrod is the intersection of satire and reality. jrodefeld posted:From Wikipedia: Literary Theorists must be notified at once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Who did jrode steal fruit-loving from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Who did jrode steal fruit-loving from? Scott Horton seems like the kind of guy who would romance a gourd. Jrod, being an idiot who can't even plagiarize right, went on to gently caress a watermelon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Do you think he got the watermelon in the mood buy watching pirated kung-fu blu-rays?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Jrode is an idiot and a fartsniffer and ugly and I want to fight him in pitched combat, clad in only loincloths, heavily oiled, rolling and groping and thrusting
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
But seriously Jrode you're a loving coward and a weakling
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:44
|
|