|
Who What Now posted:To be fair most jelly belongs in the trash. Well, adulterated statist jelly. Not that there's anything wrong with adulterants, as long as they were added beneath the aegis of market freedom. You haven't experienced truly spreadable preserves until you've tried them with lead additive.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Libertarians are incapable of eating jelly. The philosophy of individual liberty is incompatible with all forms of jams, preserves, and marmalades. A libertarian sees all berries not as members of fruit spreads, but as individuals who should be judged by their texture and sweetness, just as my personal hero Dr Martin Luther King Jr. advocated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:4. Take the kids and demand weregild for their release.  Members of the Blue Spruce clan approach the ring again. "Your weaponthane, Jrodefeld, has not repented his ways. He has turned to kidnapping children now, and demands the worth of a weaponthane each to ransom them. We demand that our children are returned and Jrodefeld punished." When asked, Jrodefeld says "These Blue Statists had aggressed against me by entering my lands without my consent after I homesteaded this earth. That they are children is immaterial - if their fascist clanmates want them returned, it is my right as an Orlanthi to be recompensed for the trouble." 1) "Jrodefeld is no Orlanthi, and you may do with him as you wish." 2) Force Jrodefeld to return the children, violating the NAP. 3) Force Jrodefeld to return the children and strip him of his weaponthane status, violating the NAP and the Second Amendment. 4) "Well, if you think about it, you were going to vaccinate these children, weren't you? So, in reality, Jrodefed is actually preventing aggression against them by defying Big Pharma." 5) "We will deal with him ourselves.  "6) "Ron Paul end the Fed."
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
theshim posted:
 Although I think 4) should have been "You have to remember, those children were no angels..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
theshim posted:
We rely on the Blue Spruce tribe to supplement our cattle herds, we can't afford to put that agreement in jeopardy. Give Jrod to them, kill two birds with one stone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Jrod won't even answer my question about his favorite black movie because of what a deliberate ho he is. I asked it in the most earnest fashion possible
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
The best proof that someone is racist is if they argue that they cannot be racist due to the nature of a group they belong to. "Libertarians can't racist, we're individualists!", "Christians cannot be racist, we're all God's children!", etc. Being against racism isn't about identifying racist thoughts and actions of yourself and not thinking/doing them, it's a badge you iron onto your coat and show proudly. You've reached Unracist status. You are forever free from self reflection. Go forth and build a new Apartheid, hero.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:The best proof that someone is racist is if they argue that they cannot be racist due to the nature of a group they belong to. "Libertarians can't racist, we're individualists!", "Christians cannot be racist, we're all God's children!", etc. Being against racism isn't about identifying racist thoughts and actions of yourself and not thinking/doing them, it's a badge you iron onto your coat and show proudly. You've reached Unracist status. You are forever free from self reflection. Go forth and build a new Apartheid, hero. Someone on these forums described it pretty well: "racist" just means "a thing that I'm not" at this point. The actual literal white nationalist who popped into the old thread insisted he wasn't a racist, because he wasn't a part of the Klan or the Aryan Nation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Jrod won't even answer my question about his favorite black movie because of what a deliberate ho he is. I asked it in the most earnest fashion possible Boss friend of the family is my answer if anyone was wondering
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Someone on these forums described it pretty well: "racist" just means "a thing that I'm not" at this point. The actual literal white nationalist who popped into the old thread insisted he wasn't a racist, because he wasn't a part of the Klan or the Aryan Nation. They seem to understand, however dimly, that the word connotes something bad, something undesirable or, at bare minimum, something that at least results in social censure. What they don't get, likely because they are reflexive jackoffs incapable of introspection, is why it's bad to be a racist or the real harm racism does. You can see this seemingly willful ignorance drip from Jrod's every post on the subject where he takes a real injury suffered by racial minorities, for example let's say educational inequality, and argues that the solution isn't to actually do anything to fix that inequality (which might call for increased taxation, which is indistinguishable from white slavery in his mind) but rather just for black people to start working before the age of majority instead of completing high school (with "that'll keep the hulking Negroids too exhausted to go after the white women" being the diarrheal frosting on this particular poo poo cake). It's been said before but bears repeating: Jrod and others like him have such an impossibly high barrier for what a white person has to say/do to actually be a racist, at least when that person is in some other way appealing to him. If its, say, a statist tyrant like President Lincoln, than anything's fair game to show he was in fact more of a racist than literal slaveholders. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Exactly. Tom Woods, jrod's 10th most influential thinker, believes 1. School segregation is constitutional and should never have been outlawed 2. Black kids do better/have better self esteem at all-black schools 3. Desegregating schools has not improved black educational performance 4. It is black peoples' own fault they have worse educational outcomes than whites We can read between the lines here!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Exactly. Reading between red lines is as simple as black and white.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:Still waiting for an answer. What's your plan? Egalitarianism is not an animating principle of libertarians, which should come as no surprise to you. However, there is a problem in the United States (and presumably in other countries as well) with undeserved wealth accruing to the top 1%, the politically connected and large corporations. In that case, there is indeed income inequality in excess of what would exist in a genuine free market and this phenomenon should be addressed. The Progressive narrative runs like this: In the middle of the 20th century, we had a strong middle class, tough regulations on Wall Street and a high marginal income tax on the wealthy. We had more upward mobility and much less inequality. Then we elected Ronald Reagan, he slashed taxes on the wealthy, cut regulations and ushered in an era of unbridled greed and cronyism. Over the next three or four decades, the Corporate class grew increasingly wealthy while the middle class struggled. Now we have a situation of obscene wealth disparity and it was all caused by Republicans and their deregulation and tax cutting. This is mostly wrong, or at least misleading. Libertarians ask you to focus your attention on the role of the Federal Reserve and the growth of the State in general. The dollar was tied in some capacity to gold for all of United States history, with a few notable periods where we went off the standard for a short time (i.e. during the Civil War) until Nixon closed the Gold Window in 1971. This ushered in the era of total fiat currency with no remaining restraint on the expansion of the money supply. When the currency can be expanded at will, two things can be expected to happen. "Public" spending will skyrocket as politicians use their new-found power to fund politically motivated programs, subsidies and benefits to interest groups. The business-class will flock in greater numbers to Washington D.C. in order to lobby for special benefits for their industry. The banks will lobby for bailouts and protection, while all manner of industry will seek low-interest (below market-rate) loans for their projects. There was a famous economist called Richard Cantillon, who in the 18th century wrote his contributions to economic understanding, including "An Essay on Economic Theory". One of his most famous contributions has come to be called "The Cantillon Effect". This described the insidious process by which wealth in transferred through monetary policy from the hands of the middle class and poor to the politically connected rich. This "Cantillon Effect" probably has more to do with the recent rise in inequality in the United States than any other single factor. When the Fed expands the monetary supply, rising prices are the result if and when that money circulates throughout the economy. Now, libertarian and Austrian thinkers are quick to note that the word "inflation" used to mean an expansion of the monetary supply, i.e. more physical units of a currency brought into circulation. The phenomenon of rising prices was seen as an effect of inflation but distinct from inflation itself. And even before prices rise, there are negative effects of expansionary monetary policy. These include misleading market signals brought about by artificially low interest rates, and the enrichment of those who get to use the new money first at the expense of everyone else. If the Federal Reserve prints a billion dollars tomorrow, will prices immediately rise throughout the economy? No. Once the money starts circulating throughout the economy, it will take months or even years for general rising prices to come into effect. But what does that mean for the people who get to spend that billion dollars right away? It means that the land or resources that they purchase are bought at a lower price. As the money circulates, the last people to get a hold of these new dollars will be faced with higher prices. What this means is that real wealth has been transferred from the common man to the politically well connected rich. If we had never abandoned the Gold Standard but instead Nixon vowed to cut government spending and resume the link between the dollar and gold, we would have seen far less income inequality, less corporate greed, fewer (or none at all) speculative bubbles and Wall Street gambling. But, for the libertarian, the problem with this entire situation is not that income inequality is an inherent concern, but that the money that has accrued to the politically-connected rich has been stolen from the middle class through debasement of the currency, through taxation and through subsidy. Thus, justice would require us to redistribute stolen loot to the rightful owners, not out of a desire for greater "equality" but out of a desire for restitution. Like I said earlier though, it is true that market economies closer to libertarianism have less general income inequality than do more Statist societies. The inequality that we would see in a free society would be that which came about "naturally", through our inherent difference in ability while respecting private property and contract.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Really? That's your answer? The loving gold standard? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
fade5 posted:I'd love an answer this Jrod. The answer is that I've got some sort of a problem and I don't mind wasting my time writing thousands of words for an un-appreciative audience. I never really expected anyone here to actually be persuaded, though even if they were, they are unlikely to admit it to me. Honestly, I build up a certain reservoir of frustration about politics especially during an election season. I think just working out what I believe by writing it down has value. What keeps me going on this website is that I receive push-back to what I am saying. Even through all of the substance-less replies and name-calling in my direction, there are enough of you who respond with substance to keep me coming back to this site when I feel the need to vent about politics. However, I think I should be welcomed here as a libertarian contributor if only to enliven the discussion. It seems like some of you are just hoping I'll go away so you can have general ideological conformity. But what fun is that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I recognize you are nearly entirely ignorant of Scott Horton, AntiWar.com and the positions he holds. Scott Horton actually hosts a radio show/podcast and you can listen to it at scotthorton.org. If you don't immediately see that he is as devoutly anti Trump, Cruz and Rubio as he is anti Sanders, Clinton and Rand (?) then you don't have much of a clue. Do you even think through the logic of what you are saying before you say it?  Oh look, I got a Jrod response, not to my substantive takedown of his perspective on empiricism (here http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3745862&userid=177752#post455906759 if you want to engage with something actually substantive, Jrod), but to the aside where I looked at one of his heroes' twitter and reported what I saw. If Scott Horton is so against Trump, Cruz, or Rubio why do you think he doesn't manage to talk about it ever on Twitter? I read about a thousand tweets. Not one of them was called out, even when he was covering debates in which they said abhorrent things. In fact, everything I saw him say about Trump was positive: https://twitter.com/scotthortonshow/status/677507593644961793 So you tell me, why the hypocrisy? Why the focus on Hillary and Bernie over actual warmongers? I think it's because he's a closet conservative, just like you. I frankly could not give two shits about what he has to say on his podcast. It was painful enough to go through his concise written statements. If you have anything in particular, link to that with the time & jrodefeld posted:If Scott Horton blasts Rand Paul for being too hawkish on foreign policy, what on earth would make you think he'd be more favorable towards Trump, Cruz or Rubio who are in every way more hawkish than Rand is? He seems to blast Rand Paul for pandering and not living up to the legacy of his father, despite that being exactly what he's done. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:However, I think I should be welcomed here as a libertarian contributor if only to enliven the discussion. It seems like some of you are just hoping I'll go away so you can have general ideological conformity. But what fun is that? Hating on you is literally the ONLY thing that DnD members agree on. I'm not welcoming racists with open arms you snivelling coward. You are the intellectual equivalent to a high school sophomore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
I don't believe you. You don't come back here for the push back unless your problems include masochism. You don't amend your ideas or admit where people have caused you to question your own stated beliefs, because your ideas don't change. You just argued that income inequality would be lower in a system which makes no effort on and indeed dismisses the idea of egalitarianism outright, because GOLD STANDARD. When backed into a corner about how you would make yourself and everyone else a literal mud-tilling serf, you say "we can't all be kings" or some other patronizing poo poo. You come here so you can talk at the other, so you can say to yourself "I was a good man, I tried to show them the way" as the leftists are being marched into the ovens in your twisted libertopian head canon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The answer is that I've got some sort of a problem and I don't mind wasting my time writing thousands of words for an un-appreciative audience. I never really expected anyone here to actually be persuaded, though even if they were, they are unlikely to admit it to me. The curtain is pulled back, all is revealed. Thanks for answering me! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:(and presumably in other countries as well) Nope, just the U.S. there you loving moron
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Like I said earlier though, it is true that market economies closer to libertarianism have less general income inequality than do more Statist societies. I'll let someone else do the rest of it, but please post a ranked list of the closest economies to the Libertarian ideal. The last one you posted had literal slave countries on it, and I don't think even you are daft enough to argue that economies largely powered by slave labor have less income inequality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Gold is a fiat currency you loving dipshit. It only has value because we say it does. Just like printed currency. Instead of printing a billion dollars we could just say that gold is worth a billion dollars and the exact same loving problem arises you ignorant gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The answer is that I've got some sort of a problem and I don't mind wasting my time writing thousands of words for an un-appreciative audience. I never really expected anyone here to actually be persuaded, though even if they were, they are unlikely to admit it to me. Motherfucker respond to me. Talk to me about minimum wage jobs, because I have first hand experience doing them right now. Don't go YOU DONT WANT TO TALK and then not respond to people
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The Progressive narrative runs like this: In the middle of the 20th century, we had a strong middle class, tough regulations on Wall Street and a high marginal income tax on the wealthy. We had more upward mobility and much less inequality. Then we elected Ronald Reagan, he slashed taxes on the wealthy, cut regulations and ushered in an era of unbridled greed and cronyism. Over the next three or four decades, the Corporate class grew increasingly wealthy while the middle class struggled. Now we have a situation of obscene wealth disparity and it was all caused by Republicans and their deregulation and tax cutting. So how come income inequality actually dropped precipitously following the abandonment (for the most part) of the gold standard in 1933?  And how come the UK (which completely abandoned the gold standard in1931) experienced a similar increase in inequality in the 80s? Couldn't have anything to do with Thatcher, like Reagan, cutting taxes on the wealthy etc., could it? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Nope, just the U.S. there you loving moron That's not true. The U.S. might be terrible, but it's in a whole cohort of countries. Like El Salvador and South Africa. Oh, you wanted first world countries? Uhh, we're only a little worse than Israel. And we're pretty even with Russia in the second world. That's not bad, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:however, I think I should be welcomed here as a libertarian contributor if only to enliven the discussion. It seems like some of you are just hoping I'll go away so you can have general ideological conformity. But what fun is that? lol @ the words contributor and enliven please leave and do not come back, ever, because you will never be able to respond to the substantive points made against your worldview, nor will you attempt to do so, nor will you even acknowledge that these points have been made
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
jrode let's talk about minimum wage jobs and how worthless they are
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's a bald-faced lie. You absolutely have a problem with people who want to live in a socialist society. You constantly whine about these individuals and how their societies are inferior. No, I don't care about people who VOLUNTARILY choose to live in a socialist society. What I am opposed to, as I've said so many times, is using aggression against people. Let's suppose that a voluntary socialist was able to convince all workers in a free society to quit their jobs at the same time, pool their resources, buy land on the market and open mutualist cooperatives where they would share all their resources and all profits they make on the market. I wouldn't life a finger to prevent them from doing this. This is provided that their actions are voluntary and they don't steal any land. That is, they voluntarily quit their jobs but don't steal the legitimate property of their employer (i.e. the factory or equipment) and the land they buy is freely sold to them on the market. They don't coerce anyone into joining their cause against their will but instead try and persuade other working-class people to join them. That would be absolutely fine with me. The problem comes if or when they use violence to prevent a laborer from freely trading his or her labor for wages to an entrepreneur and similarly prevent an entrepreneur from purchasing land and/or a factory and then employing laborers. Provided, as I continually stipulate, that all interactions are entirely voluntary. There are very few socialists who are willing to maintain peace in their efforts to create their "worker's paradise". If you ARE willing to keep the peace and work towards your socialist goals by respecting homesteaded legitimately acquired private property and using persuasion rather than aggression to get compliance with your values, then you will be entirely welcome in a libertarian free society. You absolutely choose not to reciprocate this courtesy to the libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No, I don't care about people who VOLUNTARILY choose to live in a socialist society. What I am opposed to, as I've said so many times, is using aggression against people. Let's suppose that a voluntary socialist was able to convince all workers in a free society to quit their jobs at the same time, pool their resources, buy land on the market and open mutualist cooperatives where they would share all their resources and all profits they make on the market. you're a garbage piece of poo poo adn i hope you die because you won't respond to me
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You absolutely choose not to reciprocate this courtesy to the libertarian. On the contrary, you are welcome to VOLUNTARILY live in a Libertarian society, a gated community where you all choose to interact only in contracts and commerce. As long as you pay your taxes and follow the greater society's laws & regulation. The problem comes if or when someone tries to run a hospital out of their garage with no training or sell food that will make people sick. Most Libertarians are unable to do this without aggressing against the societal contract, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No, I don't care about people who VOLUNTARILY choose to live in a socialist society. What I am opposed to, as I've said so many times, is using aggression against people. Let's suppose that a voluntary socialist was able to convince all workers in a free society to quit their jobs at the same time, pool their resources, buy land on the market and open mutualist cooperatives where they would share all their resources and all profits they make on the market. So imagine the US becomes your beloved Free Libertarian Society, but the socialists somehow convince everybody to join up, and legitimately acquired all the land from coast to coast. If baby jrodefeld is born into the society that results and wants to be a Captain of Industry when he grows up, but can't because the drat mutualist cooperative keeps making him share his profits, what then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:Hello jrod, why are public health care systems in other industrialized nations better at controlling costs than the health care system in the United States, and how does that contend with your claim that the underlying reason for high heath care costs in the US is government intervention?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, this would absolutely make you a bigot. That's like the exact literal definition of bigotry you ignorant loving slime! I worded that imprecisely. What I meant was if you were a member of the police or homeland security who was investigating a purported plot by ISIS to attack Los Angeles, would you make the assumption based on the statistics that the attacker would be of Middle Eastern descent and also a Muslim? Or would you really think it is reasonable that you'd suspect the elderly Jewish grandmother just as much as the twenty-something guy who just flew in from Syria? This would not be about impugning an entire race or religion but would be about looking at the facts regarding terrorism and ISIS membership in order to thwart a planned attack. I didn't mean to imply it would be reasonable for average people simply to be nervous and uncomfortable around Muslims because of the existence of ISIS in the world. That would be prejudiced and probably bigoted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Something tells me that one of the major reasons for the delay between posts is that Jrode has to artfully sculpt each response to perfection and then admire their beauty and craftsmanship at length before finally clicking on 'Submit Reply'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
this makes me want to dig up my original "elasticity of demand" post about life-saving medical care, which he "responded" to months later with "PROFIT IS KING BUT NOBODY WOULD DO EVIL THINGS BECAUSE REASON" e: here it is, maybe i can even find his response Muscle Tracer posted:You do not understand "inelasticity." Let me give you a two-part example: ee: lol the time stamps on these posts jrodefeld posted:My first response about healthcare is to note that healthcare inelasticity is not a new phenomenon. If you needed heart surgery in the 1950s or you would die you would pay whatever the cost was as long as you could gather the money, borrow the money or steal the money to pay. Yet healthcare costs were much lower throughout the history of the United States. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I worded that imprecisely. What I meant was if you were a member of the police or homeland security who was investigating a purported plot by ISIS to attack Los Angeles, would you make the assumption based on the statistics that the attacker would be of Middle Eastern descent and also a Muslim? Or would you really think it is reasonable that you'd suspect the elderly Jewish grandmother just as much as the twenty-something guy who just flew in from Syria? So if you're a cop being bigoted is OK. Look how much you suddenly love a cop when they act racist! It's the only time you love cops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:That's not true. The U.S. might be terrible, but it's in a whole cohort of countries. Like El Salvador and South Africa. I learned something today about Israel. Why am I not surprised Israel has the same level of inequality?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No, I don't care about people who VOLUNTARILY choose to live in a socialist society. What I am opposed to, as I've said so many times, is using aggression against people. Let's suppose that a voluntary socialist was able to convince all workers in a free society to quit their jobs at the same time, pool their resources, buy land on the market and open mutualist cooperatives where they would share all their resources and all profits they make on the market. What the gently caress does aggression mean and why is it wrong? That's a big problem with your argument - a lot of what you say are just words that we have to interpret the same way you do, or else all is lost. But this is also an incredibly naive worldview. Let's deal with babies. Most of us were born into a preexisting state. The place that we live likely existed and likely had a similar political structure established before we were born. Growing up, I had no more choice to be an American citizen than I did being a man or having the most gorgeous eyes you've ever laid... um... eyes... upon. So what happens when a baby is born into this world? Do we kick them out of society until they are old enough to chose to live in a society? Well, that's just loving stupid. Of course you wouldn't support something like that. Society would crumble as soon as people started having sex, meaning the only civilizations left would be either exclusively homosexual or obsessively into Star Trek. And in that land, the exclusively homosexual society filled with Star Trek nerds would have near unlimited power. I assume the more rational decision would be make them live in that society until they can choose to move elsewhere. Ah, but wait, we have a problem. A 13-year-old does not agree with the socialist principals we've established in our society. He does not want to abide by our egalitarian rules! Okay, we can banish him from the land. But then he would likely die and the parents wouldn't be cool with us. Alright, we will try to force him to comply. Wait, you have an 18-year-old who hates our society and wants to live in the Capitalist society. But he can't afford to move to the Capitalist society. What do we do? Do we force him to live like a socialist? What are his options? Does he try to behave like a capitalist in a socialist society? Then what do we do? It seems like the solution to a libertarian's conundrums are almost always banishment. The purely voluntary society just wouldn't last more than maybe a generation, tops. Because here's the thing - we can't have social upheaval every time a new generation comes of age and decides they want to live under a different set of rules but also want to stay close to their parents. It all sounds very nice until you start to deal with practical questions like having sex that leads to reproduction, and then you run into problems. Eventually, people will want to live their way and they will run into a problem - there's no more land to buy. But that's okay. You probably weren't planning on having sex anyway. quote:There are very few socialists who are willing to maintain peace in their efforts to create their "worker's paradise". Can you please provide evidence for this? I'm not the one who basically wants to wipe out the entire human race and stop all procreation. Although, if you did sell your worldview as a never-ending homosexual orgy, I think you might get a lot more support. quote:If you ARE willing to keep the peace and work towards your socialist goals by respecting homesteaded legitimately acquired private property and using persuasion rather than aggression to get compliance with your values, then you will be entirely welcome in a libertarian free society. The reason why we don't reciprocate this courtesy to the libertarian is that what they want is contrary to how we feel society must function. It's like going into a vegetarian restaurant and getting upset that they don't have moo-cow burgers but only tofu burgers. We believe that society functions by a rule of law and that people can choose to live as they please within reason, but as members of our society, they have to fulfill certain requirements. If they don't like it, they can leave. And if they can't leave, then they can not like it but abide by it until they either can leave or get enough people together to enact a change. And what are you going to do if we choose to use aggression to get our way? Like, think for more than 5 seconds about what you're going to say. You're so dense you don't hear what other people are saying. Yeah, it sounds nice. But it also doesn't stand up once you start poking holes at it. Edit: Oh God-damnit jrodefeld posted:I worded that imprecisely. What I meant was if you were a member of the police or homeland security who was investigating a purported plot by ISIS to attack Los Angeles, would you make the assumption based on the statistics that the attacker would be of Middle Eastern descent and also a Muslim? Or would you really think it is reasonable that you'd suspect the elderly Jewish grandmother just as much as the twenty-something guy who just flew in from Syria? Look, I was trying to help you before. But you just couldn't resist, and you had to dig in. So, here's how we go about things in the real world. An attack happens. If we had reason to believe it's from ISIS, we can probably identify the people by seeing who has traveled to the region, or who has had contact with that region. Or look for people who have been spreading speech similar to that of ISIS. You're not going to look at every Muslim, because for the most part, you're going to uncover NOTHING. It's a waste of time. And you might miss the perp. There are white boys who want to join ISIS. It could be someone trying to make the attack look like it came from ISIS. Who knows? You better learn Chinese at the rate you're digging that hole. Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I worded that imprecisely. What I meant was if you were a member of the police or homeland security who was investigating a purported plot by ISIS to attack Los Angeles, would you make the assumption based on the statistics that the attacker would be of Middle Eastern descent and also a Muslim? Or would you really think it is reasonable that you'd suspect the elderly Jewish grandmother just as much as the twenty-something guy who just flew in from Syria? Nope, still Klan levels of racism. Racial profiling is never the answer full stop. quote:I didn't mean to imply it would be reasonable for average people simply to be nervous and uncomfortable around Muslims because of the existence of ISIS in the world. That would be prejudiced and probably bigoted. That would be hosed up, law enforcement looking on all Arabs and Muslims with suspicion though is right on and in keeping with the
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
George Zimmerman wasn't a cop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:58
|
|
