|
Caros posted:Since you're not really going to engage and are just interested in doing drive bys against easy targets, I'm not going to go too deep into this again, but your numbers here are wrong. I explained, in detail how they were wrong further upthread, but you either didn't bother to read my reply, or you ignored it because of what you want to believe. But lets go over it one more time, in detail, now that you've provided a source. Have you got some links that prove that Rummel's statements are incorrect? I think we have to acknowledge the difficulty in accurately assessing the precise figures. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of factors that have to be taken into account and good academics can disagree on methodology in good faith. But exactly how wrong does Rummel have to be to invalidate the point I am making by citing him? If it turned out that the Soviet Union only killed 52 million of it's own citizens and Nazi Germany killed 31 million would that disprove the conclusions that are commonly drawn from the work? The point that is commonly concluded from Rummel's work is that both Communism and Fascism are terrible systems that resulting in tens of millions (if not more than one hundred million) of preventable deaths. The best estimates seem to indicate that Communism killed more people than Fascism. Maybe there are methodological errors in Rummel's work. I've seen other estimates that are not far off from the numbers he comes up with. Speaking of errors though, you made a whopper of one yourself earlier in this thread. When I brought up Hillary Clinton in an earlier post, I mentioned the deaths of Iraqi children due to sanctions imposed in Iraq by her husband throughout the 1990s. I cited the oft-mentioned 500,000 figure and you retorted that this figure was incorrect. You said: Caros posted:I mean, it is nice to see that your view on foreign policy basically boils down to 'hilldawg bad' but really, you need to stop reading whatever idiot magazine repeats a lot of this stuff to you. The Madaline Albright quote in particular, while horrifying, doesn't reflect the reality. You say there is 'credible' evidence, but there is none. The myth you're talking bad comes from a 1995 letter to The Lancet which was based on a survey done in Baghdad. After errors were pointed out to her, the original author of the survey rechecked her work and found that it was inaccurate and the claim was pulled. Unicef did another survey and found the incorrect result due to making the same loving errors as Zaidi's original survey. In the end, Unicef the UN and the WHO each did a round of survey which found no evidence of a spike in child mortality during the sanctions period. It is a false and misleading claim, and the fact that you're repeating it two decades after the fact goes to show how even the dumbest loving ideas can stick around long after they are disproven. I'd like you to take a few minutes to listen to this recent interview with Richard Garfield, who authored this 1999 essay: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/A2E2603E5DC88A4685256825005F211D-garfie17.pdf Here's the interview: https://scotthorton.org/5-18-18-richard-garfield-on-the-excess-death-rate-of-the-1990s-u-s-sanctions-in-iraq/ The Unicef survey may have inflated the numbers, but Garfield's latest estimates put the number of preventable infant deaths at over 200,000. Not 500,000, but an awful lot all the same. The more important point is that everyone at the time took the Unicef numbers at face value. Albright did when she said the price was "worth it" and policy makers did when they maintained the sanctions when they could have offered relief.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
one thing that comes across strongly in that article by the dude who got him tenure is that peterson has exhaustively studied revolutionary and authoritarian rhetoric. that's the mold he has cast himself against now in his public persona; i suspect that peterson sees himself as something akin to a "lenin of the right" at the moment. he's getting seriously caught up in his own cult of personality, which has led to a noticeable escalation in how radical he allows himself to appear when interacting with the mainstream media
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 09:24
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:No libertarian who has ever lived has actually done as much evil as Hillary Clinton has. Christ, what's with the racists assholes constant whining about Hillary? She lost, get over her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I want to talk about my views on race and bigotry in general. I keep getting owned every time I open my mouth, so I want to change the subject. But not really. I can't stop talking about how racists get a hard knock in life. quote:You'll recall that this wasn't a topic that I brought up. My intention was to speak about Jordan Peterson and whether right-wing and libertarian speakers ought to be allowed to speak on college campuses without disruptive protests shutting down the event. I was immediately regaled with accusations of harboring racist views, or being blind to the bigotry of libertarians and conservatives. I think you'll find that it was, dipshit. You brought up Ann Coulter and a number of virulently racist pieces of poo poo as examples of people who were having their free speech supressed. It is impossible to discuss the people you brought into the discussion, without first discussing the reason why people don't want them to speak, namely the fact that they are mostly famous for being bigots. It'd be like trying to talk about why people don't like swimming Tommy the Poolshitter, without talking about how he shits in the pool. quote:I've seen many good, upstanding people be libeled as bigots when they are nothing of the sort. So precisely defining bigotry and putting it in it's proper context is essential to allowing reasonable discussions on difficult issues. This may be the case. Unfortunately, you haven't really quoted any of these people. You have instead quoted a lot of terrible people and refused to acknowledge that they are terrible. quote:I believe that people who use terms like "racist", "white supremacist", "misogynist", "neo-Nazi", "fascist", etc have an obligation to use those terms only when they properly apply. Improper and careless use dilutes the terms and lessens the impact when truly odious people deserve to be castigated using labels that are descriptive of their obvious behavior. I believe that obsfuscating bad behavior, as you are attempting to do here, emboldens the worst in humanity to continue to spew hate and intolerance. quote:People, by our essential nature, are tribal. We've evolved to have in-group preferences and distrust outsiders. This manifests itself in all kinds of ways in human behavior. Different groups of people harbor feelings of distrust and irrational prejudice against outside groups, whether it be by ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, country of origin, or sexually identity. Agreed! quote:I believe that the only way to truly transcend these age-old prejudices is through intellectual insight. The supreme achievement in this regard is the doctrine of individual rights, first espoused during the European Enlightenment. Individualism compels a person to disregard the natural group-identity obsessions that they might be otherwise compelled to focus on, and instead see each person as a unique individual to be judged on their own merits. This is basically just Idontseecolor.txt. It is an nonsense argument that basically relies on you being a white boy who has never in your entire life suffered a single solitary ounce of bigotry or prejudice. An african american can't 'discard' their group identity, because their group identity is defined by the color of their skin, and influences each and every human interaction they have. A black man doesn't get to use individualism to rise above his group identity, because that cop isn't going to give a poo poo when he fires six warning shots into his back for jaywalking. Yes, there is value to be had in treating everyone as individuals, but the idea that we can just discard these social groups is loving absurd. quote:This is a core doctrine of liberalism and libertarianism which I subscribe to. What the gently caress just happened to your doctrine of liberalism and libertarianism? You just finished telling us how you prefer to disregard group-identity obsessions, then you go off on how 'the left' as your ideological boogyman. Also, no, it doesn't. Jordan Peterson became a public figure because he was worried his ability to discriminate against transgender individuals would be in jeopardy, we talked about this after your last dumb post. I've also shown you, in detail, the nature of Peterson's misogyny. quote:Many groups of people have unconscious or conscious preferences for certain groups over others. They have implicit biases that they may not even be aware of. But we're not. Not only is this a useless slippery slope argument, but it ignores the fact that we have provided numerous credible examples that the people you keep quoting are in fact worthy of the title. quote:And so we draw distinctions. The way I draw distinctions is whether or not someone is advocating violence against a person owing to their group affiliation. Okay, wait. Are you loving serious right here? So, in your estimation, if I walk down the street wearing a klan outfit, pointing a burning cross at a black man shouting "Get out of my town you loving friend of the family", that does not make me a bigot? Your argument is that I literally have to be advocating physical violence in order to be bigoted against another person? RealTalk, you are worried that the word bigot could be extended to anyone or anything, and you're so worried that you would exempt actual members of the Ku Klux Klan from being called bigots by narrowing the definition. loving christ, Richard Spencer, a full on Neo-Nazi goes out of his way to publicly claim that he doesn't advocate for violence (though he dog-whistles all the live long day and probably slips up from time to time), so by your definition, even he, a man who thinks Hitler had some good ideas and wants a white ethnostate, even HE is not a bigot by your definition. How loving retarded are you? I'm serious. Do you have actual loving brain damage you insipid gently caress? quote:When Caros was accusing me of being indifferent to the supposed racism of libertarians, I responded by mentioning that nearly every person on this forum voted for Hillary Clinton. I didn't do this to deflect, but to put into contrast the moral enormities you're willing to tolerate in one area, while having a strict no-exceptions policy against offensive speech. No, you did it to deflect. And no, that is not the only reason you disingenous gently caress. The average Clinton voter didn't vote for Clinton because they wanted the PC Gestapo, they voted for her because Donald Trump was and is a crazy man who would subvert the fabric of democracy, fundamentally damaging it for generations to come while spending years pushing violent white supremacy to new heights. I get that you're a single issue retard, but other people aren't. This has been explained to you, you lying gently caress. quote:Someone mentioned the Roseanne Barr situation earlier. I agree that her tweet was racist and she probably deserved to be fired. I initially thought this was a one-off thing, but apparently she'd been tweeting insane conspiracy theories and offensive stuff for some time now. Whataboutyoustayonthefuckingpoint? Stop deflecting you actual racist piece of poo poo who I would happily punch square in the motherfucking jaw like captain america knocking out Hitler. quote:Consider people like Bill Krystol, Max Boot and David Frum who were as responsible as anyone for lying us into the War in Iraq and defending torture and other atrocities. Consider someone like Obama, who used drones to kill untold numbers of innocent civilians in the middle east, including an American citizen and his sixteen year old son. This has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Also, as you might be aware if your brain hasn't entirely melted into idiot jelly, Donald Trump has scaled up the Obama era drone program, while loosening restrictions on civilian casualties. If you are, as you claim, interested in lowering civilian death tolls, then choosing to vote for Jill Stein of all people was, in essence, a vote to allow more war, not less. I don't like the forever war either, but lol if you think Donald loving Trump and the republicans going to be the one who winds that poo poo back. I mean, yeah, lets talk about foreign policy, how do you think the situation in Iran is going to go, now that hawks in the GOP have encouraged Donald to pull out of a multi-lateral deal that had staved Iran's nuclear ambitions. Do you think it is going to get better? Or worse? quote:Roseanne's career is probably over due to some offensive tweets. Obama's going to be producing some Netflix shows and he'll be receiving six figure speaking fees for the foreseeable future. The Neo-cons will continue to be treated as serious intellectuals worthy of respect on cable TV and even MSNBC, the supposedly "progressive" network. You really are a loving idiot. quote:In the context of this grotesque disparity in treatment, someone like Jordan Peterson is being shouted down and accused of being a fascist and misogynist because he criticizes radical feminism and disputes the extent of the gender pay gap. Nope, you don't get to do this anymore. I posted an extensive breakdown of Peterson's deep rooted misogynistic tendencies. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge reality does not work in your favor, and jamming your head in the sand or trying to gaslight the thread into believing that Peterson is just getting a bad rap, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, is going nowhere. You want to fight back against us calling him a misogynist, then argue against his words. Until then I have all the evidence, you have all the whining pleading. quote:Classical liberals and libertarians believe that laws should be based on individual rights, irrespective of which group each individual belongs to. So their philosophic musings on differences between genders hold no threat to anyone. They hold plenty of threat to the people who would be discriminated against. By fighting against Bill C-16, Jordan Peterson is extending the ability of bigots to discriminate against transgender individuals. If he'd had his way, bigots would have been able to discriminate in the workplace against transgender individuals, causing measurable harm such as loss of work. But you don't care, because again, white-white boy has never even been looked at askew, so what the gently caress do you care? quote:My political project is focused on stopping the mass murder our government does first and foremost. Funny, because your original focus in this thread was 'allow bigots to be bigots'. Even in this thread you're basically using your anti-war stance as a bludgeon. You're basically going full whataboutism and arguing 'well, war exists, therefore why do we care about racism?' It is 'No war but class war' except you're actually arguing 'Since war, eh, whatever.' quote:I look at the historic crimes committed by the State, and in it's proper context, I don't feel the need to virtue-signal about the occasional politically-incorrect thing someone I otherwise admire says. Except you don't have proper context. As has been pointed out to you multiple times now, the numbers you are using as the basis for your arguments are wrong. You're making lovely decisions from bad data and trying to claim the moral high ground, which makes you look like a loving idiot, btw. quote:After all, the people I do like don't make racist statements that normal people would consider racist. 'Normal', huh? quote:When you made the judgment call to vote for Hillary Clinton, you knowingly supported a mass murderer. You may agree that Hillary was terrible in an absolute sense, but you made a judgment call that she would have been much better than Donald Trump. Which is true. quote:No libertarian who has ever lived has actually done as much evil as Hillary Clinton has. Lack of ability does not negate lack of desire. Libertarians cannot get elected, because their ideology is politically unpalatable and frankly disgusting on its face, as has been discussed for literally hundreds of pages in this thread. If you put the presidency in the hands of any libertarian candidate you'd end up with a loving catastrophe, and I guarantee you that you'd end up bitching they weren't a true libertarian as the blood on their hands piles up. You don't run an empire without getting dirty, which is why Libertarians look clean, because they don't get to run it at all. quote:Even so, I look at each individual person in their totality. I never agree with anyone completely, but I judge whether someone has their priorities straight and whether the good outweighs the bad. Which is of course why you assume everyone here voted for Clinton and supports her implicitly. It is also why you constantly bitch about 'the left'. Because you look at everyone individually. quote:It is perfectly possible to pull out quotes from almost any prolific intellectual from the 20th century which look offensive by the standards of 2018. And you can certainly do this with prominent libertarian intellectuals. But you could also do the same thing with progressive and conservative intellectuals. You take the good, and discard the bad. No, it isn't. There is a common misconception thrown around among libertarians that if you look long enough you'll see something equally bad. But you don't see liberal thinkers defending pedophillia, or being huge misogynists. All you're attempting to do here is excuse bad behavior by claiming that everyone does it. They don't. quote:What you shouldn't do is write someone off because they said one thing on one subject that offended you. I haven't. I've quoted you dozens of examples, you lying poo poo. quote:People are fallible and we all try to improve over time. Anti-gay bigotry used to be more widespread than it currently is. We learn. Love each other. Seriously, you just claimed that racism doesn't exist unless the racist is literally punching the person they hate. gently caress you, and gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 09:36
|
|
|
but what if the watermelon consents
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
Caros posted:Sure. One example isn't really indicative of a trend, I agree! For example, democrats response to Anthony Wiener was to kick his rear end to the curb for sexting, and then to kick his rear end again when he kept doing it, before it was ultimately revealed that he was sexting witch children. I'm going to make a major concession. I think libertarians have had a problem dealing with the rights of children. This goes back to when Murray Rothbard mused in The Ethics of Liberty that it might be legal for parents to allow their child to die. In other words, parents may not physically harm their child but they don't have a positive legal obligation to provide care to the child. Mind you, he didn't say that this would be good. But merely that it wouldn't be illegal. I find this position to be morally abhorrent, and many libertarians since have corrected Rothbard's error. You DO have a positive obligation to care for your child. If you no longer wish to care for your child, you have to bring the child to someone who will, i.e. give the child up for adoption. The problem that libertarians run into is that they try to take first principles and apply them to all kinds of situations uncritically. I like Mary Ruwart, but I know that this passage has been taken out of context. Before the paragraph you quote, Ruwart says: "Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can, and should, prosecute their oppressors." The entire passage was extracted from Ruwart's 1998 book "Short Answers to the Tough Questions". It was brought up by her libertarian opponents and the media scandal surround this issue probably kept her from the nomination. This article I think does an accurate job of putting into context what Ruwart actually said in the book: https://aaeblog.com/2008/04/25/ruwart-on-childrens-rights/ After this scandal erupted, Ruwart said: ""Certainly I am not for child pornography. Anyone who forces a child into a sexual act needs to be prosecuted, obviously; because there's a violation of rights." I think Mary Ruwart is a good person. She had a clumsily worded chapter in an old book that came back to haunt her. You are not going to find me defending all libertarians. I especially dislike the Libertarian Party as an organization. I don't know what else I can say on this subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Have you got some links that prove that Rummel's statements are incorrect? Right here. The very first link has an easy to understand summary that is well sourced, but you can look at about a half dozen links on that page and find others if you don't like it. The fact they you can't be bothered to do the most basic research before spewing your nonsense is offensive. quote:I think we have to acknowledge the difficulty in accurately assessing the precise figures. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of factors that have to be taken into account and good academics can disagree on methodology in good faith. Yes, there are, and those factors were taken into account by numerous other historians who did a better job. Rommel had an ideological axe to grind and his numbers were well beyond the norm in general, and well beyond reality in the examples where we have more or less exact numbers. The man could not get his statistics right, and the fact that you keep quoting him without bothering to see if your data is right says a lot about you. Namely that you believe what you want to believe, rather than what is right. quote:But exactly how wrong does Rummel have to be to invalidate the point I am making by citing him? If it turned out that the Soviet Union only killed 52 million of it's own citizens and Nazi Germany killed 31 million would that disprove the conclusions that are commonly drawn from the work? Plenty. The point of you quoting this, and quoting it earlier in thread, was to downplay how bad fascism was and to play up communism as some great evil. The problem is that not only are you using bullshit numbers, but you're apples and oranging data to get the point you want. You ignore the fact that the Nazis were responsible for close to nintety million deaths when you factor in the war (which you kind of have to) or the fact that the Nazi regime lasted twelve years, while the communist deaths span most of a century. Or than a majority of the communist deaths aren't intentional, but the result of famine which in at least two major cases was the result of a loving drought that would have happened either way. quote:The point that is commonly concluded from Rummel's work is that both Communism and Fascism are terrible systems that resulting in tens of millions (if not more than one hundred million) of preventable deaths. The best estimates seem to indicate that Communism killed more people than Fascism. Again, you are comparing two wildly different things, excluding things that you don't want to see, using flat out wrong statistics all to make a dumb, dumb argument. It'd be like if I point out the fact that the world is largely capitalist (which is true) and then point out that there have been eighteen million poverty related deaths on average for the last half century alone and blaming that on capitalism. quote:Maybe there are methodological errors in Rummel's work. I've seen other estimates that are not far off from the numbers he comes up with. There are. But go on. quote:When I brought up Hillary Clinton in an earlier post, I mentioned the deaths of Iraqi children due to sanctions imposed in Iraq by her husband throughout the 1990s. I cited the oft-mentioned 500,000 figure and you retorted that this figure was incorrect. He's wrong. Still. Garfield was wrong when he signed off on the original study, he knew the followup was wrong which was why he retracted his name from Lancet II. The pushed rushed a bunk study through peer review without sufficient research in order to satisfy their ideological goals. So yeah, a guy who published a misleading study for ideological reasons, including a section in his study about "apportioning the blame" for the crisis, which has no loving place in a peer reviewed study, then goes on to later claim that 'no, I was actually mostly right and it was still terrible and those guys who claimed I was full of poo poo were wrong.' The guy lied to you once and you ate it up. Here he comes with a bowl full of steaming poo poo and you open up wide, don't you? quote:The more important point is that everyone at the time took the Unicef numbers at face value. Albright did when she said the price was "worth it" and policy makers did when they maintained the sanctions when they could have offered relief. No, the vast majority of thinkers in washington rightly thought the study was full of poo poo, because unlike you they were not morons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
RealTalk, what is your opinion on Dispute Resolution Organisations, or otherwise privatising police and the rule of law?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:06
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I'm going to make a major concession. I think libertarians have had a problem dealing with the rights of children. This goes back to when Murray Rothbard mused in The Ethics of Liberty that it might be legal for parents to allow their child to die. In other words, parents may not physically harm their child but they don't have a positive legal obligation to provide care to the child. Mind you, he didn't say that this would be good. But merely that it wouldn't be illegal. Holy poo poo, look at you. Next you'll be admitting that you jam your dick in produce. quote:I find this position to be morally abhorrent, and many libertarians since have corrected Rothbard's error. You DO have a positive obligation to care for your child. If you no longer wish to care for your child, you have to bring the child to someone who will, i.e. give the child up for adoption. *Extremely John Oliver voice.* cool. quote:The problem that libertarians run into is that they try to take first principles and apply them to all kinds of situations uncritically. Not a bug, a feature. quote:I like Mary Ruwart, but I know that this passage has been taken out of context. Before the paragraph you quote, Ruwart says: "Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can, and should, prosecute their oppressors." Of course you do. Now I get that you think you've found a weasily answer by saying that she's being taken out of context, but that doesn't negate what I loving posted, now does it? Yes, she thinks child rapists should go to jail. Great. She also thinks we should allow 'willing' minors to engage in sexual activities with adults and have those activities recorded for the purposes of child pornography, because it will reduce the need for 'abuse' based child porn. Do you not see the loving problem with that? If not, let me help you. It is the part where minors cannot consent and therefore there are no 'willing' minors able to be filmed for the purposes of child porn. The fact that this has to be explained. The fact that it kept her from the nomination is a good thing. Do you know what the correct answer is to the 'tough question' she was 'asked' in that book she wrote? The answer is that while individual rights to do as they will are very important, a minor is not able to consent to sexual activity and thus child porn must be illegal on its face because child porn is defacto child abuse. quote:After this scandal erupted, Ruwart said: ""Certainly I am not for child pornography. Anyone who forces a child into a sexual act needs to be prosecuted, obviously; because there's a violation of rights." You do see what is missing here, right? She's still talking about 'forcing' a child into it. As if there is any situation in which a child can have sex with a grown man that is not forced. Do you seriously not get this? quote:I think Mary Ruwart is a good person. She had a clumsily worded chapter in an old book that came back to haunt her. Get hosed. Caros fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:07
|
|
|
Apparently the organisation that was in charge of adjudicating the prize for solving Fermat's Last Dear _______, Thank you for your proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. The first error is on line ____. This negates the proof. Sincerely, I feel like doing the same with JRod's walls of text. I just get to the second line, usually, then my brain does that Seinfeld-throwing-up-hands-and-leaving thing and tells my right index finger to spin that loving scroll wheel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
Caros, did you support Bill Clinton's economic sanctions against Iraq?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:31
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Caros, did you support Bill Clinton's economic sanctions against Iraq? JRod casts logic maze! Caros is ~~~### ANNIHILATED!!! ###~~~
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Caros, did you support Bill Clinton's economic sanctions against Iraq? RealTalk, I was between the ages of 7-15. The geopolitical situation in Iraq was not particularly high on my list of priorities. As an adult I find it difficult to say, since everything is tainted by 20/20 and the second Gulf War. I think they were probably one of the better solutions, given that Iraq had a very recent history of invading Kuwait. Your turn. Do you see any problem with a politician you like being in support of 'consensual' child pornography. If you don't like that one, did you support the Iranian sanctions that led to the Iranian nuclear deal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:35
|
|
|
This is a great blow, as everyone knows leftists hold Bill Clinton to be the current living avatar of the Commie-Trinity-Marx-Lenin-Stalin. If he did anything bad that means we must deregulate everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:40
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:
You just posted an article defending the right to possess child pornography, you absolute fucker. I'm just happy I was bright enough to open the link in incognito mode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:You just posted an article defending the right to possess child pornography, you absolute fucker. I'm just happy I was bright enough to open the link in incognito mode. Lol, Jesus, how did I miss that. I'd visited a few blogs while I was pulling up the Ruwart stuff, so the link was purple and I thought it was linking to one of the other ones that just argued she was being 'taken out of context', not one that says: quote:With regard to child pornography, I think criminalising the mere ownership or possession of it is legally incoherent, not just for the usual libertarian reasons (though those too) but on the grounds that the prosecutors of the crime would have to violate the very law they’re enforcing in order to maintain possession of the evidence needed to prosecute – unless of course prosecutors are exempted from the laws that apply to everybody else, but that would be hard to square with impartial justice. Moreover, if it were illegal to own photographic depictions of real-life rights-violations then all the news footage from wars, police beatings, etc. would have to be banned as well. I have a special love for the bolded part though. One weird trick to get rid of all law enforcement. Sure you recovered that stolen TV, but since it is stolen, you now possess stolen property and can't convict me. Checkmate, law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 10:56
|
|
|
Caros posted:RealTalk, I was between the ages of 7-15. The geopolitical situation in Iraq was not particularly high on my list of priorities. I strongly disagree. I don't see what business it is of the United States if Iraq invaded Kuwait. They didn't threaten us and had no ability to attack us. Economic sanctions tend to hurt the most vulnerable people in a society. Osama bin Laden cited the Iraq sanctions as one of the reasons Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Just looking at things logically, I cannot see why you'd think it's plausible that harsh economic sanctions that lasted for years wouldn't have any effect on childhood mortality in a poor, third world country like Iraq. Your arguing that the childhood death rate due to the sanctions wasn't 500,000, it wasn't even 200,000. No, it was ZERO. On it's face, this claim seems dubious at best. If you are supporting the sanctions, your lack of skepticism at this claim makes more sense. Yes I do see a problem with any politician supporting child pornography. I can't find any recent interview with Ruwart where she clears up her position on the subject but her position, as far as I can ascertain it, seems indefensible. I just find it very hard to believe that her actual position was/is that a child could give consent to sex with an adult in any capacity, let alone for producing pornography. Did I support the Iranian Sanctions? No, but I supported the Iran Nuclear Deal. Actually my view is that Iran had long abandoned any effort at developing a Nuclear weapon so the Nuclear Deal was an unnecessary safeguard against that possibility. I support every effort to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons everywhere on the planet. You are implying that the sanctions were necessary to denuclearize Iran and safeguard against them developing a weapon. I don't accept this. I suggest reading Gareth Porter's book "Manufactured Crisis": https://www.amazon.com/Manufactured...factured+crisis
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 11:01
|
|
|
I mean if we're including famines, the libertarian dream governments of sacrosanct property rights were really murderous in their imperial ventures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 11:10
|
|
|
There's never been a true libertarian society. We know this because any True Libertarian Society would have immediately invented infinite energy and discovered infinite resources.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I strongly disagree. I don't see what business it is of the United States if Cool, you do realize that sanctions aren't war. Right? And that Clinton wasn't the one who conducted the first gulf war. We can certainly argue over whether you think the US should intervene in conflicts (you did oppose the intervention in the Kosovo genocide, for example), but your question was about sanctions. Bill Clinton sanctioned Iraq because Iraq invaded their neighbour, and sanctions allowed him to impose financial pressure in order to prevent further conflicts. Other countries agreed, even. quote:Economic sanctions tend to hurt the most vulnerable people in a society. Osama bin Laden cited the Iraq sanctions as one of the reasons Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. A crazy mass-murderer doesn't need a reason to be a crazy mass murderer. Also, what would you have the US do? Because I guarantee you that without US intervention the Iraqi government would have hurt the most vulnerable people in Kuwaiti society. Sometimes there are no good options, and unlike you most people aren't emotionless robots who can look at a country invading her neighbors and just shrug. quote:Just looking at things logically, I cannot see why you'd think it's plausible that harsh economic sanctions that lasted for years wouldn't have any effect on childhood mortality in a poor, third world country like Iraq. See, this is just bad logic. In a number of ways. For one thing, I didn't say it was zero. I'm fully on board with the idea that there might have been incidental deaths in the low single or double digits as a result of the policy, thought it'd be very hard to trace an A->B in those cases. Secondly, your argument that I'm biased because I 'support the sanctions' doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. I don't have a particular dog in this fight. I brought it up after you posted because I knew that the number you were talking about was fraudulent, in fact, the british medical journal called it "a masterful fraud", but beyond that I don't much care one way or the other about a two decade old decision on sanctions that I could have done nothing about. You, on the other hand, have a big honking doberman up in this battle. You need to be right on this in some fashion or another. You have a heavy bias against the sanctions and it would severely undercut your talking point if it turned out that there was no significant deaths related to the sanctions. As such you're trying to press on the idea that even though we now both agree that the guy was full of poo poo in the first place, this time though, he isn't full of poo poo. Except, that three studies done by reputable groups, with good scientific method and good data showed that the mortality rate didn't jump above 40/1000, which is basically where it was pre-sanction. So what I have on my side is unbiased data, and what you have is supposition and the repeated whining of the guy who got it wrong in the first place. You're basically in the same position as an anti-vaxxer (btw, are you anti-vax? I'm curious if we hit the retard trifecta) in that your data has been refuted but you keep making the claim regardless. quote:Yes I do see a problem with any politician supporting child pornography. I can't find any recent interview with Ruwart where she clears up her position on the subject but her position, as far as I can ascertain it, seems indefensible. Cool, maybe you ought to have done your research better before you defended her. Huh? Also, has it occured to you that the reason you can't find her 'clearing up' her position is because that is her position? Some people really are just awful. quote:I just find it very hard to believe that her actual position was/is that a child could give consent to sex with an adult in any capacity, let alone for producing pornography. Apparently not. Seriously, RealTalk, she wrote her position down in plain text for you. When she was asked about them in a publicly embarrassing way she still didn't correct the record and say she is against child pornography. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... quote:Did I support the Iranian Sanctions? No, but I supported the Iran Nuclear Deal. So you're an idiot. You could have just said that. quote:Actually my view is that Iran had long abandoned any effort at developing a Nuclear weapon so the Nuclear Deal was an unnecessary safeguard against that possibility. I support every effort to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons everywhere on the planet. This is nonsense. Many of the technologies and facilities that Iran was pursuing or building in the leadup to that start of that 2013 talks that led to the JCPOA did not have significant civilian uses. The iranian government was taking their time building a weapon, and was likely doing so in the hopes of using their abandonment of it as a negotiation strategy, but the idea that they had abandoned the effort to get a weapon when they were in the process of building a new heavy water reactor while negotiations were underway just goes to show that this is another example of you not knowing what the gently caress you're talking about. And, of course, none of these negotiations would have been possible without the sanctions placed on Iran in the first place, since you can't relax sanctions you don't have. quote:You are implying that the sanctions were necessary to denuclearize Iran and safeguard against them developing a weapon. I don't accept this. I'm not implying anything. I'm stating it. quote:I suggest reading Gareth Porter's book "Manufactured Crisis": You listen to a lot of Scott Horton, don't you? Porter isn't an idiot, unlike most of the people you quote, but he is wrong on this. His argument is basically that it is Iraq redux, but there are too many people, many of them independent, who acknowledge the existence of the program. Moreover, it would have been impossible for Iran to have done things like destroy their enriched uranium stockpile under IAEA watch if they didn't have a stockpile to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 11:42
|
|
|
C'mon RealTalk. I wanna hear you talk about DROs and the libertarian position on law enforcement. How should disputes be handled, other than on forum slapfights?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:C'mon RealTalk. I wanna hear you talk about DROs and the libertarian position on law enforcement. How should disputes be handled, other than on forum slapfights? Well there won't be disputes. Disputes don't exist unless there is violence. Just like racism 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 12:25
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Caros, did you support Bill Clinton's economic sanctions against Iraq? still laughing at your claim that communism has been given a free pass it might be the stupidest thing ever posted here
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 12:34
|
|
|
I still don't know what Jordan Peterson's actual views are. I was hoping this thread would tell me without my having to sit through hours of YouTube videos. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I still don't know what Jordan Peterson's actual views are. I was hoping this thread would tell me without my having to sit through hours of YouTube videos. Oh well. Women need big strong men to give them purpose in life. Men need to be big and strong to fulfil their purpose in life. Pay no attention to the man who has the limp-wristed voice of a literal muppet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Yeah, but I thought that from the perspective of a supporter there might be something more interesting
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Caros posted:Women need big strong men to give them purpose in life. Men need to be big and strong to fulfil their purpose in life. Pay no attention to the man who has the limp-wristed voice of a literal muppet. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Caros, did you support Bill Clinton's economic sanctions against Iraq? RealTalk, do you support the decriminalization of possession of child pornography?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
Caros posted:For example, democrats response to Anthony Wiener was to kick his rear end to the curb for sexting, and then to kick his rear end again when he kept doing it, before it was ultimately revealed that he was sexting witch children. Why are Dems against paganism? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:RealTalk, do you support the decriminalization of possession of child pornography? You know, I was going to step in defending him here and say he did, but going back, no, he didn't actually. He does say that he is against child abuse, which would in a sane world, mean he is against it. Its one of the few things that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on in this case, if only because I don't know that my soul can handle the knowledge of people being that lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
When we're calculating a libertarian poster's zero-to-pedophile time, do we include the time they spent on probation for non-pedophile offenses?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Intentionally bland and likely to cause gastric distress if consumed in large quantities. It's a near-perfect metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Caros posted:You're basically in the same position as an anti-vaxxer (btw, are you anti-vax? I'm curious if we hit the retard trifecta) in that your data has been refuted but you keep making the claim regardless. jrod was, of course, or at least ASKING QUESTIONS about it. Or really really needed to defend Rand Paul's honor on the subject. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636681&pagenumber=192&perpage=40#post441412786
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:jrod was, of course, or at least ASKING QUESTIONS about it. Or really really needed to defend Rand Paul's honor on the subject. I'm still not 100% on this guy being Jrod. Some of it is very convincing, his wall of text posting style, for example, is pretty similar, as is his habit of coming back into the thread and saying something along the lines of... actually: quote:I want to follow up on our earlier conversations, but I'd like to talk about another subject for a minute. I don't intend to spend a great deal of time on it but I want to get this off my chest. I remember a few of you trying to get me to talk about vaccines in the past. I'm sure you weren't really interested in my honest opinion, but surely you wanted a reason to criticize me as being an anti-vaccer because you probably assume that I am. quote:I want to talk about my views on race and bigotry in general. Yeah, pretty similar. Even their posting timing seems pretty close. That said, I dunno, the subject matter is just weird. I could see Jrod falling for Peterson, but he rarely seemed all that gungho about freedom of speech in the way the new guy is. Likewise, RealTalk hasn't really once talked about consent, the NAP or any of his other cargo-cult anarcho nonsense. That was like his reason for being, so not having it brough up over the course of the first dozen or so posts makes me feel like he might just be an equally dumb person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Maybe he found a new Jesus and left von Mises behind.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
He hasn't denied it in much the same way jrod steadfastly refused to deny he hosed that watermelon. I really liked these lines: Caros posted:A black man doesn't get to use individualism to rise above his group identity, because that cop isn't going to give a poo poo when he fires six warning shots into his back for jaywalking. Caros posted:You don't run an empire without getting dirty, which is why Libertarians look clean, because they don't get to run it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I don't see him as being particularly political. Yet there is something about Peterson that the mainstream Left find particularly threatening. You don't have to be a fan of his to see that there have been a large number of articles recently that are outright character assassination attempts. There is a level of dishonesty in the reporting on Peterson that nobody should be justifying. I love how "ask someone a question, and write down what they say" is character assassination. It's like watching those gifs in the schadenfreude thread where someone holds a lit firework in their teeth (or butt), and coming away thinking the guy who sold them the bottle rocket committed assault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:He hasn't denied it in much the same way jrod steadfastly refused to deny he hosed that watermelon. Aww, thanks. Have a Jordan Peterson video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR-MrJwqcFc
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
"jrod or someone just as dumb in many of the same ways" v vI mean it's possible that someone on some other forum he tried his shtick on just managed to turn him on to the Gospel according to Jordan. e: beaten, kind of Polygynous fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jun 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
One one hand I feel like Jrod wouldn't bother hiding his identity if he came back? He uses the same username on every site he visits. But also the way this guy steadfastly ignores the entire issue is... Very Jrod. Like at one point or other, if you jump into a forum for the first time and all the thread regulars keep calling you by another name, wouldn't you ask for clarification at any point? At least acknowledge the seemingly mistaken identity? RealTalk are you a Jrodefeld (Jrodfeld?) re-reg and do you gently caress watermelons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 17:22
|
|
