Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 246

Imagine you knew a young Charles Cullen and knew of his plan to be a nurse...Wouldn't it be morally obilgatory for you to somehow stop him?

In the same way, I think somebody needs to prevent or dissuade RiKD from being a mental health professional. I find it disturbing that this individual plans on "helping people" and even more disturbing that his prospective clients will have no idea about his history, thought processes, motivations, etc.

On July 07 2020 23:39 Loco wrote: Amazing that in the midst of a global pandemic where the ultra wealthy have (once again) been bailed out there are still people who are convinced by the narrative that homeless people and the unemployed are the leeches in this society. You know something else? Even the Ayn Rand Institute got a bailout. Guess it was to be expected from a group that is named after a failed philosopher who elevated selfishness and independence from government, meanwhile she accepted government benefits later in her life. That's Libertarianism for you. And here's another fucking leech: Which reminds me, on the topic of Libertarian insanity... Baal, you think it's tyrannical to make masks mandatory during a pandemic? Are you saying this just because of who the coronavirus targets, or how deadly it is, or would you defend this position in every single pandemic, no matter how deadly it is? You are a true man of principle, so I guess it wouldn't matter if it could kill someone on touch, right?

You realize its possible to oppose bailouts for the rich and the poor at the same time?

Also, it seems silly to say all bailouts are corrupt or whatever some of them are necessary and when structured correctly for the right industry it makes sense just like some social welfare programs makes sense.

On July 07 2020 10:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: People aren't opposed to nuclear because it would maintain the socio-economical status quo. That is a different issue altogether. The traditional leftist is opposed to nuclear because of a) not knowing how to deal with the waste (so it's another 'push this problem onto future generations') b) fear of 'meltdowns' c) association with nuclear weapons. I think a rather consistent pattern when comparing the left and right wing is that leftists are more concerned with future generations (and less techno-optimistic) than right wingers are, which shows itself in all of these three. Now, you might argue that especially point b and to a lesser degree point c are irrational, (I largely agree - and from an environmentalist point of view Chernobyl seems to indicate that meltdowns might not be all that bad, because an area being too radioactively contaminated for humans to inhabit actually makes animal life thrive. :D ) Personally, I think that while a) is a very real issue, the problems associated with climate change are by several magnitudes bigger problems, so I'd be willing to deal with it. However, from that debate (and while I didn't watch the entire nuclear sucks change my mind video from Loco, I watched part of it, so adding some from that too), the strongest points against nuclear are rooted in the time frame required to implement nuclear and that it's not as economically viable as renewables are. Building a functional nuclear plant seems to take between 6 and 10 years (normally closer to 10 with average above 8), while renewables can be constructed in between 1 and 3 years. That is, after the planning of where to build and getting it through the political process. So even assuming that we collectively decided to lets go with nuclear now, the time frame for how quickly we need to reduce emissions would close before nuclear power would supply us with that power. And while I'm honestly not too in the weeds regarding the economic side of it, it seems like so much R&D is going into renewables that they have vastly improved in the past decade and that they are continuously improving at a very fast pace; and it seems like investment firms are betting on renewables over nuclear. The 'security' elements (which is the traditional leftist counter argument to nuclear) is hardly even featured in the debate, because it seems irrelevant; nuclear loses vs renewables from a capitalist perspective, too. If you consequently want to argue that 'this just means we should have gone with nuclear 20-30 years ago, leftists have doomed us all' then a) I think the fear of meltdowns following Chernobyl was much more rational than it is today and b) that's irrelevant when deciding future policy. All this said, I really am not opposed to nuclear as part of a future strategy for phasing out fossil fuels. I'm sure it can have an important role to play. My issues are with the misattribution of leftist motivation for opposing it, trying to make it about something clandestine sinister stuff instead of part differences in priorities and part ignorance. (Or even, part having more knowledge than either of us do- in the case of the people involved in the linked debates. )

The general public and environmentalist have opposed it for A, B , C, many leftits particulary the ones leaning libertarians have those and other reasons, as you said, they are less techno-possitive, also nuclear power is very centralized, it requires military-like security etc, solar panels on your roof seem like a much friendlier solution.

Yes nuclear plants take 10 years to build and the initial investment is considerably larger, however you are absolutey wrong regarding R&D.

In general terms, the simpler and older a machine is, the less effective R&D is, wind turbines are very simple machines we are close to the yield ceiling and no ammount of R&D will change that, the opposie is nuclear power its very complex new technology, we are close to develop waste-free reactors, we can already build reactors with no chance of meltldown and next-gen reactors with new fissible materials seem archivable in a near future, the ceiling for nuclear is much higher.

You've somewhat explored the downsides of nuclear, but have you done the same for the downsides of wind and solar? because they have many, solar panels require rare materials, I've seen studies that claim that there aren't enough minerals on earth to produce enough panels to satisfy the world's energy demand, that's not a drawback, that would be a killing blow, also wind and solar production fluctuates, which (as mentioned in the debate) requires batteries, but it wasn't mentioned in the debate, the ammount of mining needed to be done to extract the lithium required to store the world's energy in batteries is insane.

I'm not saying leftist are being sinister, I don't attribute things to malice when they can be attributed to stupidity, and I'm including biases and ignorance in under the stupidity category.

On July 07 2020 23:39 Loco wrote: Amazing that in the midst of a global pandemic where the ultra wealthy have (once again) been bailed out there are still people who are convinced by the narrative that homeless people and the unemployed are the leeches in this society. You know something else? Even the Ayn Rand Institute got a bailout. Guess it was to be expected from a group that is named after a failed philosopher who elevated selfishness and independence from government, meanwhile she accepted government benefits later in her life. That's Libertarianism for you. Which reminds me, on the topic of Libertarian insanity... Baal, you think it's tyrannical to make masks mandatory during a pandemic? Are you saying this just because of who the coronavirus targets, or how deadly it is, or would you defend this position in every single pandemic, no matter how deadly it is? You are a true man of principle, so I guess it wouldn't matter if it could kill someone on touch, right?

Yep, bailouts are directly anti-market, I've been saying this since day 1, no bailouts.

Libertarians taking $ from the state is like socialists tweeting from a new iPhone, Its hypocritical but you've been forced to pay taxes all your life so its your money, althought I taking the loss would show more integrity.


As I already said, forcing people to do certain things would be overall good, like donating organs or vaccinating (amazingly even with a state this isn't a thing), however having a institution that forces people to do things is ultimately more harmful than to not enforce these things, so no, mandatory masks aren't tyrannical at all, but we have to allow people to do as they wish to avoid a tyrannical institution.

I think these things should be socially compelled and privately enforced, in Japan masks aren't required anymore and virtually everyone wears them because its a societal norm, also many places around the world will deny you entry without a masks as you know many redneck Karens are throwing tantrums in Walmarts, that is fine with me too.

"Libertarians taking $ from the state is like socialists tweeting from a new iPhone"


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Yes, it's EXACTLY LIKE THAT. TOTALLY. IT'S ALSO LIKE WEARING CLOTHES, OR EATING FOOD "PRODUCED BY CAPITALISM". ROFL. THOSE CLOTHED AND NOURISHED SOCIALISTS, WHAT HYPOCRITES.

iF U r ALiVe UnDeR CaPiTaLiSm ThEn U OwE uR LiFe To CaPiTaLisM AnD YoU Can't CritiCiZe iT cuZ YoU'd Be DeaD uNdEr aNoTheR SyStEM, DUmMY!!!! !


I like how you added "new" iPhone, as if you weren't using the same fallacy as the average internet dingdong who just says "you can't complain about capitalism from your computer/phone you hypocrite lul, it was built by capitalism!11!!." The "newness" of the product has nothing to do with your point, you'd use it even if someone bought a second-hand phone that's 4 years old. You just say it in order to make a bigger impact on a gullible audience... "oh, "they" are also weak-willed and self-indulgently addicted to luxury, unlike me!"

On July 08 2020 01:17 Baalim wrote: Yep, bailouts are directly anti-market, I've been saying this since day 1, no bailouts. Libertarians taking $ from the state is like socialists tweeting from a new iPhone, Its hypocritical but you've been forced to pay taxes all your life so its your money, althought I taking the loss would show more integrity.

So you've gone back and you're defending the idea of taxes being theft? A month or so ago you said you didn't believe that. You've been "forced" to pay taxes and similarly been "forced" to enjoy living in a society where there is such a thing as a safety net, usually free health care, and you have received the benefits of things that were built through generations, services and knowledge that you never had to pay for. No matter how imperfect it is, it is never just this one-way bogeyman that comes to your door and steals your money.

It's not just hypocritical. You are saying "I am too good to suffer from bad luck; I deserve a hand from the state" while having worked to make sure that other people didn't, or wouldn't in the future. It's another level of selfishness.

And you have to zoom back and realize what it means for the broader ideology. These mental gymnastics and beliefs in one's own specialness just means that you will cheat the system whenever you have the opportunity to. "If people/the state aren't playing fair, then I am morally justified to also not play fair." Do you not see why that's a problem? It's the same line of thinking that you have personally used on this forum when you repeat overt lies and slander me, because you assume that I have been unfair to you. How do you expect the "good" capitalism of your dreams to emerge from these kinds of thought processes which are obviously generated and continuously reinforced in a hyper competitive society?

Why should anyone take you seriously when you say "no bailout" when you can't even not lie about someone who you perceived is being unfair to you? If you were in a position to be bailed out you sure as hell would take it. Why not, after all, according to your logic: you've toiled so hard, and the state has abused you so badly!

As I already said, forcing people to do certain things would be overall good, like donating organs or vaccinating (amazingly even with a state this isn't a thing), however having a institution that forces people to do things is ultimately more harmful than to not enforce these things, so no, mandatory masks aren't tyrannical at all, but we have to allow people to do as they wish to avoid a tyrannical institution. I think these things should be socially compelled and privately enforced, in Japan masks aren't required anymore and virtually everyone wears them because its a societal norm, also many places around the world will deny you entry without a masks as you know many redneck Karens are throwing tantrums in Walmarts, that is fine with me too.

Having an institution that forces people to do things is ultimately more harmful, but that doesn't mean that, in isolation, certain things being mandatory are more harmful than not being made so, which is the topic here that you are evading. In isolation, right now, it is not more harmful for a state to make masks mandatory, is it? Simple yes or no answer please.

They were never mandatory in Japan precisely because it's already a common practice over there, it's a collectivist society with a high respect for authority and not bothering other citizens. If it's not a common practice somewhere, then it's not going to happen overnight, you don't see cultural shifts like that. You also have a lot of politicising of it going on and conspiracy theories that are just not present in collectivist societies. But if the danger is bad enough, you're saying it causes more harm to compel people to abide by safety standards? Why is it acceptable to be privately coerced but it's not acceptable otherwise? And again, would your opinion change if it was, let's say, 10 times deadlier than covid19, and could kill anyone of any age with about the same certainty?

If you're going to a public place or service center of some kind, you're saying you should have the right to sue the people who are there if they deny you entry?

On July 07 2020 19:44 CurbStomp wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2020 18:27 RiKD wrote: Most "successful" man alive? You have this misconception that if there was some kind of UBI, people would start doing things they really love to do and enjoy life to the fullest with their newly acquired freedom. This is not true. People don't start growing vegetables, they don't start exercising more, they don't start reading or painting more. Most people will simply do nothing and get depressed. Finland is a great example of this. The reason why the govt wants people to stop living on benefits is not because they want the rich to get richer, it's because these people will deteriorate and eventually turn to the bottle and cost shit loads to the society with all the mental health problems etc what "freedom" causes. "Freedom" is cancer.

On July 08 2020 02:03 Loco wrote: "Libertarians taking $ from the state is like socialists tweeting from a new iPhone" LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Yes, it's EXACTLY LIKE THAT. TOTALLY. IT'S ALSO LIKE WEARING CLOTHES, OR EATING FOOD "PRODUCED BY CAPITALISM". ROFL. THOSE CLOTHED AND NOURISHED SOCIALISTS, WHAT HYPOCRITES. iF U r ALiVe UnDeR CaPiTaLiSm ThEn U OwE uR LiFe To CaPiTaLisM AnD YoU Can't CritiCiZe iT cuZ YoU'd Be DeaD uNdEr aNoTheR SyStEM, DUmMY!!!! ! I like how you added "new" iPhone, as if you weren't using the same fallacy as the average internet dingdong who just says "you can't complain about capitalism from your computer/phone you hypocrite lul, it was built by capitalism!11!!." The "newness" of the product has nothing to do with your point, you'd use it even if someone bought a second-hand phone that's 4 years old. You just say it in order to make a bigger impact on a gullible audience... "oh, "they" are also weak-willed and self-indulgently addicted to luxury, unlike me!"

I specifically said new iphone because its the symbol of capitalism of our era, the millenial diamonds, its quite different from an utilitlarian cheap smartphone.

Would you prefer I use a boomer symbol of capitalism like a Rolex and post all your murderous revolutionary heroes wearing them you cunt? because I'd happily do so.

it's a terrible argument though because it takes two seconds thought to compare the logical form of it to any other political system and realize that all political systems are justified so long as they produce technology and people use it. "hypocritical peasants critiquing feudalism when they are using castle walls", ect. In other words the set of all justified political systems is everything except for anarcho primitivsm, given the form of this argument.

As for nuclear, it's ideological to be pro free markets because of the many good critiques of that system, period. Having an opinion on nuclear is irrelevant. The critiques you bring up about solar are agreed upon for many on the left. Jason Hickel and other's in the decoupling debunked camp for example.

On July 08 2020 02:39 Loco wrote: So you've gone back and you're defending the idea of taxes being theft? A month or so ago you said you didn't believe that. You've been "forced" to pay taxes and similarly been "forced" to enjoy living in a society where there is such a thing as a safety net, usually free health care, and you have received the benefits of things that were built through generations, services and knowledge that you never had to pay for. No matter how imperfect it is, it is never just this one-way bogeyman that comes to your door and steals your money. It's not just hypocritical. You are saying "I am too good to suffer from bad luck; I deserve a hand from the state" while having worked to make sure that other people didn't, or wouldn't in the future. It's another level of selfishness.

Taxation is theft is too simplistic, as you mention it comes with benefits, but I think its a bad deal and we should get out of it.

But she paid for that benefit, but she is aware it was a bad deal so she doesn't want future generations to continue paying for such a bad deal., but don't get me wrong, it would be definitelly a more righteous stance to even after paying for it, refusing anything back.

And you have to zoom back and realize what it means for the broader ideology. These mental gymnastics and beliefs in one's own specialness just means that you will cheat the system whenever you have the opportunity to. "If people/the state aren't playing fair, then I am morally justified to also not play fair." Do you not see why that's a problem? It's the same line of thinking that you have personally used on this forum when you repeat overt lies and slander me, because you assume that I have been unfair to you. How do you expect the "good" capitalism of your dreams to emerge from these kinds of thought processes which are obviously generated and continuously reinforced in a hyper competitive society?

How do you expect the good socialllism of your dreams to emerge when you slander me because you assume I've been unfair to you.

lol this is such a stupid point.

Why should anyone take you seriously when you say "no bailout" when you can't even not lie about someone who you perceived is being unfair to you? If you were in a position to be bailed out you sure as hell would take it. Why not, after all, according to your logic: you've toiled so hard, and the state has abused you so badly!

[b]If the government were giving Lamborghinis randomly to 1 of each 100k people I would say that is an atrocious policy and I would be 100% right... but If I won the Lamborghini and take I would still be 100% right, but I certanly would show less integrity than somebody who refused it.

Having an institution that forces people to do things is ultimately more harmful, but that doesn't mean that, in isolation, certain things being mandatory are more harmful than not being made so, which is the topic here that you are evading. In isolation, right now, it is not more harmful for a state to make masks mandatory, is it? Simple yes or no answer please. They were never mandatory in Japan precisely because it's already a common practice over there, it's a collectivist society with a high respect for authority and not bothering other citizens. If it's not a common practice somewhere, then it's not going to happen overnight, you don't see cultural shifts like that. You also have a lot of politicising of it going on and conspiracy theories that are just not present in collectivist societies. But if the danger is bad enough, you're saying it causes more harm to compel people to abide by safety standards? Why is it acceptable to be privately coerced but it's not acceptable otherwise? And again, would your opinion change if it was, let's say, 10 times deadlier than covid19, and could kill anyone of any age with about the same certainty? If you're going to a public place or service center of some kind, you're saying you should have the right to sue the people who are there if they deny you entry?

I already answered, in isolation YES forcing people to wear a mask would be better, but if I lived in a stateless society I wouldnt create a state to enforce this thing even if its a good thing, because that entity will bring more harm to our society than what some people not wearing a mask would.

I've said many times that many aspects from a state are better than no/small state, this being one of them, I've even talked about some regulations being good, but that does not mean I support a regulatory entity.

On July 08 2020 04:17 Stroggoz wrote: it's a terrible argument though because it takes two seconds thought to compare the logical form of it to any other political system and realize that all political systems are justified so long as they produce technology and people use it. "hypocritical peasants critiquing feudalism when they are using castle walls", ect. In other words the set of all justified political systems is everything except for anarcho primitivsm, given the form of this argument.

Except that I'm not justifying any sistem, I'm talking about individual hypocricy, if you criticize capitalism and wear a rolex and drive a lambo I think we can call that person an hypocrite don't we?

As for nuclear, it's ideological to be pro free markets because of the many good critiques of that system, period. Having an opinion on nuclear is irrelevant. The critiques you bring up about solar are agreed upon for many on the left. Jason Hickel and other's in the decoupling debunked camp for example.

What? I dont understand the first sentence.

Of course they will critique solar too, leftist don't want solar panels lol, they wan't the demise of capitalism.

I'm not even neccesarely pro-nuclear, why on earth would I be? I have no dog in this fight, no method is less or more free-market, I'm simply pro-most viable energy source particularly for big developing nations which can't go high $/W options, that seems to be nuclear.

On July 07 2020 23:39 Loco wrote: Amazing that in the midst of a global pandemic where the ultra wealthy have (once again) been bailed out there are still people who are convinced by the narrative that homeless people and the unemployed are the leeches in this society. You know something else? Even the Ayn Rand Institute got a bailout. Guess it was to be expected from a group that is named after a failed philosopher who elevated selfishness and independence from government, meanwhile she accepted government benefits later in her life. That's Libertarianism for you. And here's another fucking leech: Which reminds me, on the topic of Libertarian insanity... Baal, you think it's tyrannical to make masks mandatory during a pandemic? Are you saying this just because of who the coronavirus targets, or how deadly it is, or would you defend this position in every single pandemic, no matter how deadly it is? You are a true man of principle, so I guess it wouldn't matter if it could kill someone on touch, right?

You're preaching to the choir, friend. Have you gotten the impression from me that I appreciate the government giving away part of my paycheck to others?

But I'm still not sure how a panhandler that does nothing but collect the money that others have labored to acquire makes them not a leech. Is your argument that there are other leeches to worry about? Bigger leeches? Because I'm not sure if the logic checks out on that. It's like arguing a tennis ball isn't a ball because have you seen a basketball?!

On July 08 2020 04:17 Stroggoz wrote: it's a terrible argument though because it takes two seconds thought to compare the logical form of it to any other political system and realize that all political systems are justified so long as they produce technology and people use it. "hypocritical peasants critiquing feudalism when they are using castle walls", ect. In other words the set of all justified political systems is everything except for anarcho primitivsm, given the form of this argument.

Yes, it's just a stupid argument. It's stupid when Loco says it and it's just as stupid when Baal says it. Baal's example is a bit extreme but a common one from the right is something like "If Warren Buffet and other wealthy liberals think the top 1% should pay more taxes then they should write a check to the IRS for more money!"

There's nothing hypocritical about advocating for a change in the system but still playing by the rules of the system if that change doesn't come about. Only a fool would believe that you have to hamstring yourself out of principle by preemptively following changes you want to see but that nobody else is following.

"I think the queen is too strong in chess, they should change the rules"
"Then you should start the game without your queen! Hypocrite!"

"I think the ticket pull machines at the deli counter are outdated, they should have digital ordering"
"But you just took a ticket and ordered a pound of roast beef! Hypocrite!"

Think of how many millions of examples one could come up with...

On July 08 2020 04:39 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 04:17 Stroggoz wrote: it's a terrible argument though because it takes two seconds thought to compare the logical form of it to any other political system and realize that all political systems are justified so long as they produce technology and people use it. "hypocritical peasants critiquing feudalism when they are using castle walls", ect. In other words the set of all justified political systems is everything except for anarcho primitivsm, given the form of this argument. Except that I'm not justifying any sistem, I'm talking about individual hypocricy, if you criticize capitalism and wear a rolex and drive a lambo I think we can call that person an hypocrite don't we?

Your blatantly shifting the goalposts from an iphone to goods that are essentially a form of conspicious consumption. But no, if some rich person with a lambo want's to critique capitalism i don't see how it's hypocritical. They have everything to lose from doing it. Imo critiquing a political system that you've benefitted from is one of most admirable things a person can do.

Ok, your not justifying feudalism but your saying anyone who is part of that system is automatically a hypocrite for critiquing it. There's not much difference to me.

On July 08 2020 04:39 Baalim wrote: Of course they will critique solar too, leftist don't want solar panels lol, they wan't the demise of capitalism.

You have no credibility when you speak of what leftists want because you always pigeonhole them into one stereotype or another. If we can agree that green new deal advocates are leftists, (almost everyone does), and that neoliberals are not leftists, then most on the left are essentially green new deal advocates, 'social democrats' or the equivilent, with varying opinions on solar. Most are not anti-capitalist. In my view not being anti capitalist (in the long run), is a pretty ideological position because your essentially opposing democracy by having this position, and there arn't any good arguments in favour of capitalism. So most leftists are not reasonable to me because of the right wing ideology that they accept, but that's ok, most people are good people regardless of their political positions.

On July 08 2020 05:46 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 04:17 Stroggoz wrote: it's a terrible argument though because it takes two seconds thought to compare the logical form of it to any other political system and realize that all political systems are justified so long as they produce technology and people use it. "hypocritical peasants critiquing feudalism when they are using castle walls", ect. In other words the set of all justified political systems is everything except for anarcho primitivsm, given the form of this argument. Yes, it's just a stupid argument. It's stupid when Loco says it and it's just as stupid when Baal says it. Baal's example is a bit extreme but a common one from the right is something like "If Warren Buffet and other wealthy liberals think the top 1% should pay more taxes then they should write a check to the IRS for more money!" There's nothing hypocritical about advocating for a change in the system but still playing by the rules of the system if that change doesn't come about. Only a fool would believe that you have to hamstring yourself out of principle by preemptively following changes you want to see but that nobody else is following. "I think the queen is too strong in chess, they should change the rules" "Then you should start the game without your queen! Hypocrite!" "I think the ticket pull machines at the deli counter are outdated, they should have digital ordering" "But you just took a ticket and ordered a pound of roast beef! Hypocrite!" Think of how many millions of examples one could come up with...

Apart from your lie that loco's used an argument like that, i agree.

On July 08 2020 06:21 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 05:46 blackjacki2 wrote:   On July 08 2020 04:17 Stroggoz wrote: it's a terrible argument though because it takes two seconds thought to compare the logical form of it to any other political system and realize that all political systems are justified so long as they produce technology and people use it. "hypocritical peasants critiquing feudalism when they are using castle walls", ect. In other words the set of all justified political systems is everything except for anarcho primitivsm, given the form of this argument. Yes, it's just a stupid argument. It's stupid when Loco says it and it's just as stupid when Baal says it. Baal's example is a bit extreme but a common one from the right is something like "If Warren Buffet and other wealthy liberals think the top 1% should pay more taxes then they should write a check to the IRS for more money!" There's nothing hypocritical about advocating for a change in the system but still playing by the rules of the system if that change doesn't come about. Only a fool would believe that you have to hamstring yourself out of principle by preemptively following changes you want to see but that nobody else is following. "I think the queen is too strong in chess, they should change the rules" "Then you should start the game without your queen! Hypocrite!" "I think the ticket pull machines at the deli counter are outdated, they should have digital ordering" "But you just took a ticket and ordered a pound of roast beef! Hypocrite!" Think of how many millions of examples one could come up with... Apart from your lie that loco's used an argument like that, i agree.

Scroll up. You must have missed his post where he called out Ayn Rand for collecting social security

On July 08 2020 06:23 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 06:21 Stroggoz wrote:   On July 08 2020 05:46 blackjacki2 wrote:   On July 08 2020 04:17 Stroggoz wrote: it's a terrible argument though because it takes two seconds thought to compare the logical form of it to any other political system and realize that all political systems are justified so long as they produce technology and people use it. "hypocritical peasants critiquing feudalism when they are using castle walls", ect. In other words the set of all justified political systems is everything except for anarcho primitivsm, given the form of this argument. Yes, it's just a stupid argument. It's stupid when Loco says it and it's just as stupid when Baal says it. Baal's example is a bit extreme but a common one from the right is something like "If Warren Buffet and other wealthy liberals think the top 1% should pay more taxes then they should write a check to the IRS for more money!" There's nothing hypocritical about advocating for a change in the system but still playing by the rules of the system if that change doesn't come about. Only a fool would believe that you have to hamstring yourself out of principle by preemptively following changes you want to see but that nobody else is following. "I think the queen is too strong in chess, they should change the rules" "Then you should start the game without your queen! Hypocrite!" "I think the ticket pull machines at the deli counter are outdated, they should have digital ordering" "But you just took a ticket and ordered a pound of roast beef! Hypocrite!" Think of how many millions of examples one could come up with... Apart from your lie that loco's used an argument like that, i agree. Scroll up. You must have missed his post where he called out Ayn Rand for collecting social security

It's not comparable, the differences in priviledge and metrics matter significantly.

On July 08 2020 07:58 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 06:23 blackjacki2 wrote:   On July 08 2020 06:21 Stroggoz wrote:   On July 08 2020 05:46 blackjacki2 wrote:   On July 08 2020 04:17 Stroggoz wrote: it's a terrible argument though because it takes two seconds thought to compare the logical form of it to any other political system and realize that all political systems are justified so long as they produce technology and people use it. "hypocritical peasants critiquing feudalism when they are using castle walls", ect. In other words the set of all justified political systems is everything except for anarcho primitivsm, given the form of this argument. Yes, it's just a stupid argument. It's stupid when Loco says it and it's just as stupid when Baal says it. Baal's example is a bit extreme but a common one from the right is something like "If Warren Buffet and other wealthy liberals think the top 1% should pay more taxes then they should write a check to the IRS for more money!" There's nothing hypocritical about advocating for a change in the system but still playing by the rules of the system if that change doesn't come about. Only a fool would believe that you have to hamstring yourself out of principle by preemptively following changes you want to see but that nobody else is following. "I think the queen is too strong in chess, they should change the rules" "Then you should start the game without your queen! Hypocrite!" "I think the ticket pull machines at the deli counter are outdated, they should have digital ordering" "But you just took a ticket and ordered a pound of roast beef! Hypocrite!" Think of how many millions of examples one could come up with... Apart from your lie that loco's used an argument like that, i agree. Scroll up. You must have missed his post where he called out Ayn Rand for collecting social security It's not comparable, the differences in priviledge and metrics matter significantly.

What? Can you elaborate please because I don't know what that means.

On July 08 2020 08:59 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 07:58 Stroggoz wrote:   On July 08 2020 06:23 blackjacki2 wrote:   On July 08 2020 06:21 Stroggoz wrote:   On July 08 2020 05:46 blackjacki2 wrote:   On July 08 2020 04:17 Stroggoz wrote: it's a terrible argument though because it takes two seconds thought to compare the logical form of it to any other political system and realize that all political systems are justified so long as they produce technology and people use it. "hypocritical peasants critiquing feudalism when they are using castle walls", ect. In other words the set of all justified political systems is everything except for anarcho primitivsm, given the form of this argument. Yes, it's just a stupid argument. It's stupid when Loco says it and it's just as stupid when Baal says it. Baal's example is a bit extreme but a common one from the right is something like "If Warren Buffet and other wealthy liberals think the top 1% should pay more taxes then they should write a check to the IRS for more money!" There's nothing hypocritical about advocating for a change in the system but still playing by the rules of the system if that change doesn't come about. Only a fool would believe that you have to hamstring yourself out of principle by preemptively following changes you want to see but that nobody else is following. "I think the queen is too strong in chess, they should change the rules" "Then you should start the game without your queen! Hypocrite!" "I think the ticket pull machines at the deli counter are outdated, they should have digital ordering" "But you just took a ticket and ordered a pound of roast beef! Hypocrite!" Think of how many millions of examples one could come up with... Apart from your lie that loco's used an argument like that, i agree. Scroll up. You must have missed his post where he called out Ayn Rand for collecting social security It's not comparable, the differences in priviledge and metrics matter significantly. What? Can you elaborate please because I don't know what that means.

Yeah, just use the appropriate comparative analogy of those two examples with any other political system.