|
just say star trek has a one world government and you want a food replicator cause they look cool
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:"And for the record I DO think most people are brainwashed, including you, but I don't think you just need to read more Ron Paul material. I think you need to read more material IN GENERAL. Just the fact that you support redistribution of wealth (a fundamentally violent concept) shows me that you don't truly understand even the laws of the country you live in." Just tell him he can go get hosed because he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Are you sure, man? Maybe I just need to read some more books 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
It's awfully nice of him to let you pick what sources to use for your own reeducation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:I showed him that argument you guys recommended and he responded: Unfortunately, they're probably correct that he's too far gone to matter. But, here's my attempt at a rebuttal anyways. He's missing the entire point of the false-analogy. First and foremost, the point is that the original analogy is absurd. The teacher can give everyone a 4.0 if the earn it. In the economy it's not that simple. If everyone works their rear end off, you can't make everyone a billionaire. No matter how hard everyone works there simply isn't enough wealth to go around. That's the part of the whole fallacy that "if people just worked harder, they'd be better off". They already work hard, and they aren't getting any better off because there isn't anything left to give them. He's right that if everyone just stopped working, our economy would collapse and everyone would suffer. But that line of argument is stupid because no one is calling for people to not work. What they want is to make sure that everyone who works gets a quality standard of living. Which leads into a whole other fallacy, which is that in America, you can just work hard and start your own business and be successful. But that's false, that's not an option for everyone. If everyone owned their own business, all the businesses would fail. Business, and the people who run them, only generate wealth because of the work done by the people below them. If everyone owned their own business there's no one to do the work and everyone fails. As a result, our economy, our successful business, and our successful business men like Mitt Romney (Ha!) rely on the work of others to succeed. It is impossible for them to do it alone. And that's ok. But we have to quit with the whole "if everyone worked hard, everyone would be at the top" mentality. It is impossible. Which is why things like social programs to help those at the bottom, and regulations like minimum wage laws are important. To make sure that everyone has a decent standard of living, and not just the top 20%. The second point of the analogy was to show the way in which wealth is distributed in our country. The top 1% aren't just rich, they are so rich it's absurd. No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to be wealthy. They're saying that when the top 1% owns 35% of all the wealth, and the bottom 40% own a fraction of 1% of all the wealth, there's a serious problem. He cannot honestly say that 40% of the country sits around all day doing nothing, and thus deserve nothing. quote:"And you don't need a direct quote from Obama to know what he stands for, because you just have to look at the fact that he works for the council on foreign relations who don't try to hide the fact that they want a world with one government and two classes of people: the wealthy elite and the poor serfs who can barely survive one day to the next working 14 hour days." This is the end result of unfettered Capitalism. What the gently caress is his point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Thank you so much for that effortpost. I'm going to do some thinking about what you said, because really I agree in a lot of ways, and for all his posturing that he's "done a lot of reading" or whatever, I don't think he's really asking himself these questions that you bring up. Anything else? edit: and that last part you brought up actually stands out to me a lot, because... uh... if he's making out that kind of result being a bad thing, then doesn't that mean he wants to prevent it from happening? And doesn't that mean he would support, by his vague definition, "socialist" policies to do so? According to him, redistributing wealth that way is a bad thing, and I think he even called it a "violent process" haha AwkwardKnob fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:"Just the fact that you support redistribution of wealth (a fundamentally violent concept) shows me that you don't truly understand even the laws of the country you live in." He's right. The redistribution of wealth from the poor to the elites is a fundamentally violent concept. Welcome your new comrade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:edit: and that last part you brought up actually stands out to me a lot, because... uh... if he's making out that kind of result being a bad thing, then doesn't that mean he wants to prevent it from happening? And doesn't that mean he would support, by his vague definition, "socialist" policies to do so? According to him, redistributing wealth that way is a bad thing, and I think he even called it a "violent process" haha Basically he's saying Obama is a Socialist who wants to create a Capitalist paradise. Yeah, it's beyond stupid. But... his response will be that would never happen in a real Capitalist society because people who are being exploited by their employer will just leave to work for a different employer (where are these mythical other jobs? doesn't matter they just exist); new businesses will rise up to take down the big guys who are exploitative (even though the new guy has no wealth from which to start a business because the exploitative elite already own it all), etc. His views rest on a world that doesn't exist, where wealth is available for use by anyone and where finding a new job is as easy as trying a new brand of soap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
So I had a shitshow of a discussion with a friend of a friend, who brought up the whole "more money on unemployment than working" line. Specifically, he claimed that he was receiving $400 a week on unemployment in exchange to do nothing but fill out a 13-question yes-no survey online, but had taken a $250 job instead because being unemployed wasn't honorable. Is there a response to this other than to just dismiss it as "shitthatdidnthappen.txt"? The route I chose was to ask him how he was getting by on $250 a week ("like poo poo"), then suggest that maybe it might be a good idea to pass legislation to require a remotely livable wage for people like him. Are there any important points I missed here, though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:So I had a shitshow of a discussion with a friend of a friend, who brought up the whole "more money on unemployment than working" line. Specifically, he claimed that he was receiving $400 a week on unemployment in exchange to do nothing but fill out a 13-question yes-no survey online, but had taken a $250 job instead because being unemployed wasn't honorable. Is there a response to this other than to just dismiss it as "shitthatdidnthappen.txt"? Unemployment isn't a magic entitlement, it's insurance. You pay it and it's right there on your paystub.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Unemployment isn't a magic entitlement, it's insurance. You pay it and it's right there on your paystub.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:Hahaha uh oh. For the first bit he's basically said that you're arguing in bad faith because you're not able to form cogent opinions because you've been brainwashed (Not quite an allegation of arguing in bad faith technically, but I think this is a new type of fallacy and I don't know the Latin needed to give it a fancy name). He then makes his wild claims about redistribution of wealth being inherently violent. The only way this is the case is if you're talking about the state's monopoly on violence, which is also what's used to prop up capitalism, wage slavery, etc. For the second, 100 years ago there were almost a quarter as many countries as there are now, because 100 years ago there was massive amounts of Imperialism and a few Western nations controlled huge amounts of foreign territory. I count about 60 countries that weren't colonies or protectorates of other countries in 1900. Here's my count: British Empire Qing Dynasty Russia French Empire United States Germany Dutch Empire Japan Italy Austria-Hungary Ottoman Empire Spain Brazil Portuguese Empire Mexico Korea Siam Persia Romania Belgium Argentina Netherlands Sweden Afghanistan Nepal Colombia Chile Tibet Arabia Morocco Abyssinia Peru Switzerland Chile Greece Venezuela Serbia Denmark Bolivia South African Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Uruguay Paraguay Liberia Dominican Republic Nicaragua Honduras Muscat and Oman Sarawak Orange Free State Costa Rica Montenegro Bhutan Luxembourg Monaco San Marino Liechtenstein Andorra Bonus points if when you point this out you say he's been brainwashed. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:So I had a shitshow of a discussion with a friend of a friend, who brought up the whole "more money on unemployment than working" line. Specifically, he claimed that he was receiving $400 a week on unemployment in exchange to do nothing but fill out a 13-question yes-no survey online, but had taken a $250 job instead because being unemployed wasn't honorable. Is there a response to this other than to just dismiss it as "shitthatdidnthappen.txt"? At $250 a week that's less than federal minimum wage. If he's working part-time and making that little, he should still qualify for some UI benefits. Thus, he can still honorably spin a comically oversized sign on a street corner in a statue of liberty costume and get the assistance he's been paying taxes for his whole working life. But yeah this is probably shitthatdidnthappen because there is almost no one so stupid or so blinded by ideology as to refuse to take UI. Even loving freepers take UI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Eh. Strictly speaking, employers pay it, not employees. One could argue that this amounts to the same thing - though to do so would seem to imply that the extra money would go to employees if not for UI, which I doubt. The employer pays for it with the value of your labor and ceases paying it as soon as you no longer work there. The fact that most employers are generally shitheels and would readily pocket any cut in the required employer contribution (instead of passing it on) is more illustrative of the exploitative nature of the employer/employee relationship than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
AwkwardKnob posted:Thank you so much for that effortpost. I'm going to do some thinking about what you said, because really I agree in a lot of ways, and for all his posturing that he's "done a lot of reading" or whatever, I don't think he's really asking himself these questions that you bring up. Anything else? Actually, if you haven't responded yet, the whole "create two classes of elite and serf" line may be your foot in the door so to speak. I would start of by agreeing with him, that scenario would be terrible, and then ask him if he thinks that its ok for the top 1% to own 35% a country's wealth, while the bottom 40% own less than 1%. Then when he replies, try to come up with another question in response, or ask for suggestions if you aren't sure. Basically, don't try to rebutt his arguments, after all he will dismiss your ignorant brainwashed ramblings. Just keep asking questions so he can inform you, but more importantly to force him to actually think critically. Ideally, the questions should try to lead him, but I haven't ever gotten to try this before. It may be hopeless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:So I had a shitshow of a discussion with a friend of a friend, who brought up the whole "more money on unemployment than working" line. Specifically, he claimed that he was receiving $400 a week on unemployment in exchange to do nothing but fill out a 13-question yes-no survey online, but had taken a $250 job instead because being unemployed wasn't honorable. Is there a response to this other than to just dismiss it as "shitthatdidnthappen.txt"? Please point out that he's either full of poo poo or stupid, because he can continue to draw UI to make up the difference between any part time wages and the level of UI compensation he has earned through his previous work. It is specifically set up this way to encourage people to stay active in the workforce, if even part-time, while also looking for a full time job that pays at least 80% of what they had been making at their previous job. quote:If you are working less than full time, and your gross earnings are less than your weekly benefit amount, you may still receive benefits. In this situation, you must available for and actively seeking full time work. If your part-time employer doesn’t have full time work available, or a definite date for when full time work will be available, then you must contact other employers to seek full time work. Maybe y'all live in a lovely state that doesn't do this (I don't know, I kinda assume this is how it works in all states) so you may want to doublecheck with your state's online UI benefits page. zeroprime fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
An old Army buddy of mine posted this on Facebook and I don't even know where to start:quote:On Tuesday Obama said the following about the role of government: “I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Cynnik posted:Look, no one starved failed! I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to use this response basically verbatim in the future whenever I see the stupid classroom experiment show up in my stream.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:An old Army buddy of mine posted this on Facebook and I don't even know where to start: *Has paycheck determined by government. *On good healthcare provided by government with no choice of alternative *Thinks he could negotiat with a multibillion dollar Corperation while ~10% of country want that job. *Thinks that beef he bought or asprin he took wont kill him because magic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:*Has paycheck determined by government. As for the first two he's not in the Army anymore, he didn't sign back up specifically because of his conversion to  "drat government!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:As for the first two he's not in the Army anymore, he didn't sign back up specifically because of his conversion to Well at least he sticks to his stupid convictions. How do people actually believe min wage is a bad thing when you can see other countries paying people .30$ an hour? I "get" the inflation angle arguement, but not because I COULD DO IT BETTER!!! Thats just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
quote:...because I cannot think of one thing the government can do for me that I cannot do better on my own. Holy loving  really? Not one thing? I wasn't aware the army had a program giving out free lobotomies.Please tell that chucklefuck to never drive on a highway again and see how he responds, since he's soooo much better at everything than our government. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
PKJC posted:Holy loving Those arguments don't really work because you can easily say "well businesses would have built one if there were a demand but the government did it first (and worse)." You'd be wrong, but yeah, not really convincing for someone clearly that poorly educated on the issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Yeah, but I wasn't saying he should put it forward as a cohesive argument, more of a slightly veiled 'gently caress you' because anyone who believes that kind of thing is a little too far gone for reason. I dunno, maybe too much time reading the thread, but I think there really are people just too willfully stupid to ever be educated and the best thing to do is refuse to engage them. But hey, I refuse to use Facebook because I would hate to see these kinds of things posted by family (which I know at least a few of them would). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
A friend of mine was pointing out that Obama had raised the national debt more than any other president ever, and as a result we were going to all die in nuclear fire or become gay or whatever it is conservatives currently fear. I responded by saying that it was ok to grow the debt in a recession to offset a lack of private sector demand, but I also recall seeing arguments that the debt doesn't matter floating around here. Is there anything else to say on this? My friend wasn't particularly convinced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:It was the first thought in a lot of people's minds. Also there was this: Just after I went by this post I heard a report on CNN about several Democratic state senators in Missouri finding crosshair stickers on their office doors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
KiloVictorDongs posted:A friend of mine was pointing out that Obama had raised the national debt more than any other president ever, and as a result we were going to all die in nuclear fire or become gay or whatever it is conservatives currently fear. I responded by saying that it was ok to grow the debt in a recession to offset a lack of private sector demand, but I also recall seeing arguments that the debt doesn't matter floating around here. Is there anything else to say on this? My friend wasn't particularly convinced. That is kind of a stupid thing to say (about Obama). If our economy was worth $800T and the President at the time raised the debt $10T in one year, it would be bigger than all four years of Obama combined. When you look at it from a meaningful measurement, debt vs. GDP, no one comes close to FDR thanks to the Great Depression and WWII. As for the rest there is lots to say about deficits and debt, but being on my phone makes it difficult. If no one else answers you I will try to later tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
A Young Republican-type Facebook friend of mine has started a new blog! Here's his first post!State of the Union Address posted:There was something last night on Obama's State of the Union Address that I had to comment on. It regarded this dangerous concept called "equality." Last night, in his address to the American people, President Obama made the following statement, "No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them." (Emphasis added) Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/24/transcript-obamas-2012-state-union/#ixzz1kVYQfqN5 Lots ~Founding Fathers~ and Communism Is Great on Paper. This guy went to private school is going to a private university, by the way. Here's the link to the blog if you'd like to ride along: http://reflectionsofourfoundingfathers.blogspot.com
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-biotruths!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
trans fat posted:This guy went to private school is going to a private university, by the way. Disregarding the terrible opinions, what lovely private school let him graduate thinking it's perfectly ok to open up an essay quoting the loving dictionary? I eagerly await blog post two where he throws together one part bootstraps, two parts free market, just a dash of can-do spirit, mixes it on high and delivers up a frothy frappaccino of freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
trans fat posted:A Young Republican-type Facebook friend of mine has started a new blog! Here's his first post! "Maybe we shouldn't let strong and powerful people beat up weak and poor people who just want a decent standard of living" =/= "everyone into your government-approved bungalow!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
We can't always be equal, so why bother helping anyone ever?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
trans fat posted:A Young Republican-type Facebook friend of mine has started a new blog! Here's his first post! I don't know if anyone else thought this, but I was cracking up as that essay progressed. Especially by the last paragraph, you can just tell how he imagines himself speaking it perfectly before a huge crowd to thunderous applause. It just seems so melodramatic. Reminds me of another conservative fella who began his blog with quote:It is with fever and passion that I type this inaugural entry. I debated on whether or not it would be “watering” down the purpose of this blog to add such a personal perspective to something that I feel is universal in America, but is uniquely exclusive because of the nature of who we are as individuals that make up this great nation. [...]
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
Augster posted:I don't know if anyone else thought this, but I was cracking up as that essay progressed. Especially by the last paragraph, you can just tell how he imagines himself speaking it perfectly before a huge crowd to thunderous applause. It just seems so melodramatic. He probably was doing just that. We're Facebook friends because we were in a local theatre production together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
It's unbelievable how effectively the wealthy have taken control of the narrative in politics today. "Redistribution of wealth" is the perfect example. That has been going on for the last 35 years, except it has been going from those with the least to those with the most. You should probably point out to your friends that unless they are making $1 million a year or ever will be (they won't) that all they are doing is arguing in favor of a small subset (that they will never be in) of people to have more than they ever will. And this isn't through any ability or skill. It's through blatantly exploiting people. I'm sure others could say this much more succinctly than I did, but I was surprised no one had pointed out the ridiculousness of yelling, "b-bu-but 'redistribution of wealth'" while ignoring that it has been happening for a long time now at the expense of nearly everyone in the country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:We can't always be equal, so why bother helping anyone ever? Seriously, this. It pisses me off so much when people trot out the ideas of either inherent human equality or inequality to defend bootstrapper bullshit like this. Maybe I'm just too angry to think straight, but I'll try an analogy that probably turns out stupid. Say you go out rock-climbing with a friend, nice big mountain, but you've both spent a decent number of years practicing and doing this, so nothing insurmountable. Now suppose your friend's rope starts wearing out because he can't really afford to always spend money on new climbing gear. Now, you, as a successful person, have enough money that you always have a few extra ropes handy, even though the one you're using is in great shape as is. As a friend, at the worst you'd let him/her borrow one of your spares before starting the climb, or as a good friend for whom money's not an issue, you'd just let him have it, and not think a thing of it, because your friend getting hurt or killed because you didn't want to let them have a better rope is unthinkable. Completely unconscionable. Now imagine instead of a friend, it's just a co-worker. Instead of a co-worker, perhaps just an old acquaintance. Then maybe a stranger who you know at least shares your political/philosophical views, you know, a fellow Repub/Dem/Lib, or fellow Christian/Muslim/Jew/Atheist/Agnostic. Someone agreeable. Now imagine they're not of your chosen views. Perhaps even (gasp) someone from another country. For which of those people do you wait until the other person's rope actually snaps before helping them? And then, for which do you not even offer a hand, and continue climbing upward as though it's their fault things turned out this way? And then, how much would you have to hate someone to sabotage their rope beforehand? To kick them as they try to keep up with you? To push them away when their safety rope snaps and force them to fall? All while yelling down after them "This wouldn't have happened if you weren't so drat lazy"? Because the last part? That is how much all these bootstrapper types hate anyone who has the gall to be poor in the US. It doesn't matter that the system is biased against them, that the people being touted as successes do not work thousands, or hundreds, or even tens of times harder than most people in this country. It's always the fault of the ones being bullied for not doing something about it. Ugh, I think I need to stop staring into the abyss. Breaktime for me I guess. (Don't worry, if my analogy sucks, at least I know better than to FW: FW: FW: the drat thing.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
PKJC posted:"B-b-but I shouldn't be forced to be a decent human being!" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:"B-b-but I shouldn't be forced to be a decent human being!" This is basically what I hear. Everyone is all for charity, church work, and the like. People just hate the government. Granted, a lot of that hatred is understandable, but most of it is founded on faulty claims in the first place, and often misdirected. I think it's inconceivable to many people that there are countries who don't hate and completely distrust their governments, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
The white kid in private school comes to the conclusion that "life isn't fair" and people should work harder if they're poor. Shocking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Countblanc posted:This is basically what I hear. Everyone is all for charity, church work, and the like. People just hate the government. Granted, a lot of that hatred is understandable, but most of it is founded on faulty claims in the first place, and often misdirected. That's exactly what my parents say, and I've only ever known them to voluntarily donate money or resources to my private schools (on top of my tuition). Once they bought a big flat-screen television for a school club that welcomed me, because the club was showing movies on a 17" box and Dad (a bit of a film geek) thought that was so unjust. It's not that I'm not grateful, but do college kids really need to see Galaxy Quest in high-def more than urban schoolchildren need computers? There are so many kids who are only different from the way I was because they don't have rich parents - why do I deserve nice things and they don't? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 02:43
|
|