Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 247

On July 08 2020 10:44 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 08:59 blackjacki2 wrote:   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 "I think the ticket pull machines at the deli counter are outdated, they should have digital ordering" "But you just took a ticket and ordered a pound of roast beef!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.

Again, what? How does that elaborate on your previous post? You said there are differences in "privileges and metrics." What "metrics" are you talking about?

You just said you agreed with my post where I said it's stupid to call Warren Buffet a hypocrite for saying the rich should pay more in taxes but then actually paying less than his secretary in taxes, but then you defend Loco for calling out Ayn Rand for collecting social security. Are you implying Ayn Rand had more privilege and metrics(?) than Warren Buffet?

This is everything that's wrong with political discourse these days. It's just inconsistent reasoning and mental gymnastics. I don't care if you agree with me that neither of them are hypocrites as long as you then agree that they would BOTH be hypocrites. Just be fucking consistent.

On July 08 2020 03:26 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2020 19:44 CurbStomp wrote:   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.

I really don't understand your problem. That was a valid opinion and a very reasonable take, lol.

On July 07 2020 02:17 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2020 01:56 VanDerMeyde wrote: Its not about how much money you make, its about how much you save Dave Ramsay will not save you from death. Neither will money. Go for a walk in a cemetery.

I will try again today:

I am a bit suprised that someone as great in poker as you are, can have this fish-logic. There are so many advantages you dont see...

On July 08 2020 11:40 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 10:44 Stroggoz wrote:   On July 08 2020 08:59 blackjacki2 wrote:   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. Again, what? How does that elaborate on your previous post? You said there are differences in "privileges and metrics." What "metrics" are you talking about? You just said you agreed with my post where I said it's stupid to call Warren Buffet a hypocrite for saying the rich should pay more in taxes but then actually paying less than his secretary in taxes, but then you defend Loco for calling out Ayn Rand for collecting social security. Are you implying Ayn Rand had more privilege and metrics(?) than Warren Buffet? This is everything that's wrong with political discourse these days. It's just inconsistent reasoning and mental gymnastics. I don't care if you agree with me that neither of them are hypocrites as long as you then agree that they would BOTH be hypocrites. Just be fucking consistent.

It's not the same though, i was leaving it as an excercise for you to do on your own because i was curious to see how much of a different answer your one would be from mine. More is learnt that way as well. (Also i don't really think these trivial excercises deserve an elaborate response).

Someone benefitting enourmously from the system and cheerleading their own political system while doing the opposite of what they preach is not even remotely the same as an average person in the system using part of the technology and then critiquing the system. How are they remotely the same? You group baal and loco examples in the exact same category. So lets do the basic excercise here: People in North Korea are as much of a hypocrite for critiquing leninist marxism while using technology produced by the state as the upper class in N Korea that are praising leninist marxism while doing the opposite of what they praise. That's one comparative example. Once you do that, it doesn't seem to be quite right to say that does it?

Buffett want's a more progressive tax system, which is a critique of his own class, (though a very mild one). The libertarian think tanks are the opposite, they are essentially dedicated to making the ruling class look as good as they possibly can.

Obviously you can critique buffett for hoarding his wealth but that's a seperate issue. And perhaps if your a radical you can even go so far as to say we should apply the law to people who cheat on taxes. (That's a joke)

Here's something consistent; its an ethical rule for any society at any point in history: If you benefit from a political system to a consideral degree, critiquing your own system is admirable, if instead your focusing your criticism on other groups, classes, or societies, that is cowardice.

On July 08 2020 14:27 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2020 02:17 RiKD wrote:   On July 07 2020 01:56 VanDerMeyde wrote: Its not about how much money you make, its about how much you save Dave Ramsay will not save you from death. Neither will money. Go for a walk in a cemetery. I will try again today: I am a bit suprised that someone as great in poker as you are, can have this fish-logic. There are so many advantages you dont see...

I have seen like 2 videos from Ramsay. I don't like his rhetoric. Obviously it is better to save than have a bunch of stupid shit. I'd much rather have a pile of cash sitting somewhere I can access it worth 6-12 months of living expenses than not. Maybe even more to take advantage of outlier events.

I mean the guy basically advocates saving money. I don't need a 10 min. video from a caricature to know that. I'd rather spend $1,000,000 on experiences/giving than have $1,000,000 in the bank within reason. I'd rather have a ranch with a bunch of land in Wyoming than a lambo. A lot of land would be a lot to take care of though. I don't want to hire servants. I guess I could get a bunch of sheep and cows (hopefully rescue) to mow the lawn for me and then I could get that border collie I've always wanted. So, $10k–100k USD in a trusted credit union, land in Wyoming, and the rest in Bitcoin perhaps.

I don't need savings in my account when I die. I need to live a better life when I am alive. That doesn't mean frivolously spending. I was serious about going for a walk in the cemetery. It is some of my best advice via Heidegger. Hoarding money is for weirdos.

"In Wyoming, the growing season is short and summer temperatures can be cool. When selecting crops, choose from quickly maturing plants that grow well in cool weather, including radishes, leaf lettuce, and onions. Other crops to consider are cabbage, cauliflower, head lettuce, spinach, beets, car- rots, and peas." –University of Wyoming

Mmmm.

But, *hint hint* what will the growing zone be in 20 years? 50 years?

I'm giving more life tips away.

On July 08 2020 03:26 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 07 2020 19:44 CurbStomp wrote:   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.

I don't get the message here. Is that an insult against me because I'm a schizophrenic and a schizophrenic guy killed his brother(??) or are you saying that what I said is a far right conspiracy theory.
It's exactly what is happening in Finland. It's something that even the most leftist party here, Vasemmisto (if you don't count the meme communist party), is agreeing on. Long time unemployment leads to social exclusion, which leads to mental health problems and substance abuse, which leads to costly rehabilitation. This is pretty basic.

On July 08 2020 05:20 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + 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?!

You are being terribly inconsistent here. On the one hand you clearly believe that what is wrong with the government giving away part of your paycheck to others is the fact that it is involuntary -- that it's the government making the choice how they will allocate the funds they get from you. You are not against helping people voluntarily.

Yet, somehow, your right-wing mental conditioning makes you commit to these mental gymnastics where you completely ignore your own stance in the very next sentence: beggars are not "collecting money" in the way that the government does; every cent they receive is donated to them by people who feel like they can afford to help them out a little. They are not "leeching", let alone "off the hard work of others". These are value-laden statements, they are condemnations of a type of person which you regard as lazy and better off dead. These subjective value judgments are rooted in Social Darwinism: the idea that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" applies to capitalism, and has been used to justify oppressing people and justifying gross inequality that directly leads to people dying because it's "natural".

So no, I am not preaching to the choir because our perspective could not be any more different. I am able to make distinctions that matter here, meanwhile you come up with bogus analogies with inert objects that lose the complexity of social dynamics under capitalism. When you think that a homeless person who is constantly food insecure, physically and verbally abused, and who merely survives off of the kindness of strangers is equivalent to some billionaire superyacht owner who gets government handouts, and it's just the "degree to which they are leeching" that differs, you are out of your fucking mind.

When you barely get enough to survive in a capitalist system that structurally depends on the existence of the poor, the unemployed and the homeless for its continuance, it is categorically not the same as being rich and getting more money when your survival for several lifetimes is already assured. It is categorically not the same in two fundamental ways: (1) one exchange is voluntary, the other isn't. (2) One is for mere survival, the other is to "cheat the system": it's to be able to maintain your current level of luxury and stay ahead of the people who are struggling more than you are -- or get ahead even more.

It's important to understand that since capitalism depends on the poor and disenfranchised to function then you can also not treat the underclass as though its existence is a matter a moral failure. It has nothing to do with morality, it is structurally determined. If you are against the existence of an underclass, you have to be against capitalism. If you are content with capitalism and believe it's the best system, then the least you can do is spare people these moral condemnations that are disconnected from reality.

By the way, we are about to see an enormous surge in homelessness due to covid and the end of the moratorium on evictions. While the ultra wealthy were being bailed out, regular hard-working americans only received a singular payment of $1200. This was not enough for many people who were already living paycheck to paycheck. You cannot make sense of this situation through moral condemnation either, you need to see things from a structural perspective.

On July 08 2020 17:12 RiKD wrote: "In Wyoming, the growing season is short and summer temperatures can be cool. When selecting crops, choose from quickly maturing plants that grow well in cool weather, including radishes, leaf lettuce, and onions. Other crops to consider are cabbage, cauliflower, head lettuce, spinach, beets, car- rots, and peas." –University of Wyoming Mmmm. But, *hint hint* what will the growing zone be in 20 years? 50 years? I'm giving more life tips away.

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...

It's hypocritical because it involves a moral condemnation upon those who use it, and then a self-serving justification that "only those who oppose the state are morally allowed to use it". It's not just a matter of opposing the system. Otherwise, technically as an anarchist I am morally justified to use it too, because I ultlimately oppose it. Except there's a caveat: according to Rand I have to see it in the exact same way as she does, and be willing to slowly destroy it and blame and kill poor people for "not being productive", otherwise I am not morally justified to use it. This is not about transforming the system to a better one and putting more power into people's hands, unlike she claims, this is about merciless greed, selfishness and cruelty. You don't transform the system by depriving people of the necessary means of life when circumstances beyond their control puts them in a disadvantageous position and there are no alternate systems in place. If you really want to transform society and get rid of the welfare state, you have to prop up alternative mutual aid networks that people can depend on in the present.

On July 08 2020 16:45 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 11:40 blackjacki2 wrote:   On July 08 2020 10:44 Stroggoz wrote:   On July 08 2020 08:59 blackjacki2 wrote:   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. Again, what? How does that elaborate on your previous post? You said there are differences in "privileges and metrics." What "metrics" are you talking about? You just said you agreed with my post where I said it's stupid to call Warren Buffet a hypocrite for saying the rich should pay more in taxes but then actually paying less than his secretary in taxes, but then you defend Loco for calling out Ayn Rand for collecting social security. Are you implying Ayn Rand had more privilege and metrics(?) than Warren Buffet? This is everything that's wrong with political discourse these days. It's just inconsistent reasoning and mental gymnastics. I don't care if you agree with me that neither of them are hypocrites as long as you then agree that they would BOTH be hypocrites. Just be fucking consistent. It's not the same though, i was leaving it as an excercise for you to do on your own because i was curious to see how much of a different answer your one would be from mine. More is learnt that way as well. (Also i don't really think these trivial excercises deserve an elaborate response). Someone benefitting enourmously from the system and cheerleading their own political system while doing the opposite of what they preach is not even remotely the same as an average person in the system using part of the technology and then critiquing the system. How are they remotely the same? You group baal and loco examples in the exact same category. So lets do the basic excercise here: People in North Korea are as much of a hypocrite for critiquing leninist marxism while using technology produced by the state as the upper class in N Korea that are praising leninist marxism while doing the opposite of what they praise. That's one comparative example. Once you do that, it doesn't seem to be quite right to say that does it? Buffett want's a more progressive tax system, which is a critique of his own class, (though a very mild one). The libertarian think tanks are the opposite, they are essentially dedicated to making the ruling class look as good as they possibly can. Obviously you can critique buffett for hoarding his wealth but that's a seperate issue. And perhaps if your a radical you can even go so far as to say we should apply the law to people who cheat on taxes. (That's a joke) Here's something consistent; its an ethical rule for any society at any point in history: If you benefit from a political system to a consideral degree, critiquing your own system is admirable, if instead your focusing your criticism on other groups, classes, or societies, that is cowardice.

I agree that Baal's argument that anyone that uses an iphone can't criticize capitalism is much weaker. But if you agree with the theme of my post:

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.

then you can't argue that Loco never made that type of argument. Somebody calling for an end to social security but still accepting social security benefits after years of paying into the system is a perfect example of the above quote. There's no "practice what you preach" hypocrisy. Warren Buffet is not advocating for wealthy individuals to voluntarily pay more in taxes. He is advocating for a change in the system that causes wealthy individuals to pay more in taxes. It's a subtle difference.

On July 08 2020 17:39 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 05:20 blackjacki2 wrote:   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?! You are being terribly inconsistent here. On the one hand you clearly believe that what is wrong with the government giving away part of your paycheck to others is the fact that it is involuntary -- that it's the government making the choice how they will allocate the funds they get from you. You are not against helping people voluntarily. Yet, somehow, your right-wing mental conditioning makes you commit to these mental gymnastics where you completely ignore your own stance in the very next sentence: beggars are not "collecting money" in the way that the government does; every cent they receive is donated to them by people who feel like they can afford to help them out a little. They are not "leeching", let alone "off the hard work of others". These are value-laden statements, they are condemnations of a type of person which you regard as lazy and better off dead. These subjective value judgments are rooted in Social Darwinism: the idea that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" applies to capitalism, and has been used to justify oppressing people and justifying gross inequality that directly leads to people dying because it's "natural". So no, I am not preaching to the choir because our perspective could not be any more different. I am able to make distinctions that matter here, meanwhile you come up with bogus analogies with inert objects that lose the complexity of social dynamics under capitalism. When you think that a homeless person who is constantly food insecure, physically and verbally abused, and who merely survives off of the kindness of strangers is equivalent to some billionaire superyacht owner who gets government handouts, and it's just the "degree to which they are leeching" that differs, you are out of your fucking mind. When you barely get enough to survive in a capitalist system that structurally depends on the existence of the poor, the unemployed and the homeless for its continuance, it is categorically not the same as being rich and getting more money when your survival for several lifetimes is already assured. It is categorically not the same in two fundamental ways: (1) one exchange is voluntary, the other isn't. (2) One is for mere survival, the other is to "cheat the system": it's to be able to maintain your current level of luxury and stay ahead of the people who are struggling more than you are -- or get ahead even more. It's important to understand that since capitalism depends on the poor and disenfranchised to function then you can also not treat the underclass as though its existence is a matter a moral failure. It has nothing to do with morality, it is structurally determined. If you are against the existence of an underclass, you have to be against capitalism. If you are content with capitalism and believe it's the best system, then the least you can do is spare people these moral condemnations that are disconnected from reality. By the way, we are about to see an enormous surge in homelessness due to covid and the end of the moratorium on evictions. While the ultra wealthy were being bailed out, regular hard-working americans only received a singular payment of $1200. This was not enough for many people who were already living paycheck to paycheck. You cannot make sense of this situation through moral condemnation either, you need to see things from a structural perspective.

Eh, the "voluntary" vs "involuntary" thing doesn't really affect my opinion on the matter. I'm not morally opposed to the government collecting taxes. For the sake of simplifying the discussion I will change my verbiage from panhandlers "collecting" money to panhandlers "receiving donations" if it makes you happy.

I should clarify my point of view. Since we are talking about distinctions, we should point out the difference between an unemployable homeless person with mental health or addiction issues, or somebody that lost their livelihood in the pandemic, compared to if RikD quit his job because he didn't want to make pizzas anymore and posted up on a street corner to solicit donations from people that drove by. There's a difference between someone being incapable of contributing to society and someone choosing not to contribute because they would rather just sit around and solicit the fruits of someone else's labor.

I appreciate your long rant about how I'm only here to slur the underclass as lazy do-nothings but I clearly explained how my definition of leech also applies to the wealthy taking government handouts they didn't deserve. It would equally apply to many middle to upper class kids that live at home with their parents and play video games all day, or trust fund babies that live off the silver spoon in their mouth.

So once again, here we are: We have blackjack correctly applying the definition of a leech across all people regardless of class, social status, race, religion or gender and we have Loco who selectively applies the definition of a leech to exclude his protected classes. I'm starting to see a trend here.

Right, let's make that distinction, because RiKD has no mental health or addiction issues. Oh wait, he does, and he's been blogging about them for years. So apparently the only distinction left is this fabrication that he's currently unemployed because he "simply did not want to make pizzas anymore." But that has strictly nothing to do with his current situation: he left that pizza job for another job at the time, pre-pandemic. Are you going to morally condemn a person for changing jobs?

You've created this completely artificial distinction between the character of some average homeless person and RiKD. If RiKD went to solicit donations he would be humiliating himself and setting himself up for abuse in the same way other homeless people are. He would be there for the same reasons they are: out of desperation. It's an objectively worse way to make money in every possible way than holding down a job. He would start using drugs again in no time, because that's the only way you survive the streets. You just casually told a drug addict who has been successful in avoiding drugs that he should go and put himself in harm's way, in a situation where he would use again, because, what? He posted an article on "simple living" that you didn't like? You're a ridiculous person.

On July 09 2020 00:20 Loco wrote: Right, let's make that distinction, because RiKD has no mental health or addiction issues. Oh wait, he does, and he's been blogging about them for years. So apparently the only distinction left is this fabrication that he's currently unemployed because he "simply did not want to make pizzas anymore." But that has strictly nothing to do with his current situation: he left that pizza job for another job at the time, pre-pandemic. Are you going to morally condemn a person for changing jobs? You've created this completely artificial distinction between the character of some average homeless person and RiKD. If RiKD went to solicit donations he would be humiliating himself and setting himself up for abuse in the same way other homeless people are. He would be there for the same reasons they are: out of desperation. It's an objectively worse way to make money in every possible way than holding down a job. He would start using drugs again in no time, because that's the only way you survive the streets. You just casually told a drug addict who has been successful in avoiding drugs that he should go and put himself in harm's way, in a situation where he would use again, because, what? He posted an article on "simple living" that you didn't like? You're a ridiculous person.

Mental health and addiction issues are a social construct.

On July 08 2020 17:02 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 14:27 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On July 07 2020 02:17 RiKD wrote:   On July 07 2020 01:56 VanDerMeyde wrote: Its not about how much money you make, its about how much you save Dave Ramsay will not save you from death. Neither will money. Go for a walk in a cemetery. I will try again today: I am a bit suprised that someone as great in poker as you are, can have this fish-logic. There are so many advantages you dont see... I have seen like 2 videos from Ramsay. I don't like his rhetoric. Obviously it is better to save than have a bunch of stupid shit. I'd much rather have a pile of cash sitting somewhere I can access it worth 6-12 months of living expenses than not. Maybe even more to take advantage of outlier events. I mean the guy basically advocates saving money. I don't need a 10 min. video from a caricature to know that. I'd rather spend $1,000,000 on experiences/giving than have $1,000,000 in the bank within reason. I'd rather have a ranch with a bunch of land in Wyoming than a lambo. A lot of land would be a lot to take care of though. I don't want to hire servants. I guess I could get a bunch of sheep and cows (hopefully rescue) to mow the lawn for me and then I could get that border collie I've always wanted. So, $10k–100k USD in a trusted credit union, land in Wyoming, and the rest in Bitcoin perhaps. I don't need savings in my account when I die. I need to live a better life when I am alive. That doesn't mean frivolously spending. I was serious about going for a walk in the cemetery. It is some of my best advice via Heidegger. Hoarding money is for weirdos.

Okey, I understand u better now.

With 1 million dollar in your account however, you could make a comfortable living on the interest alone for the rest of your life. The technology fond I invest in made 22% per year on average the last 10 years. So in your case, 220.000$ per year. There is no guarantee it will keep doing that, but for sure you could expect - on average - at least 60.000$+.

Well, you didnt need to hear this basic stuff from Dave Ramsey. But I did. I saved no money, had no real plan and maxed out my credit card. So credit card companies makes a ton of money because of people like what I used to be. And 70% of americans (norwegians too I think, we have the most dept in the world) are living paycheck to paycheck.

When you do start investing and you have things more under control, Dave Ramsey is not the one to listen to. There are other more +EV voices out there for investing and getting out of debt :-)

On July 09 2020 03:22 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On July 08 2020 17:02 RiKD wrote:   On July 08 2020 14:27 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On July 07 2020 02:17 RiKD wrote:   On July 07 2020 01:56 VanDerMeyde wrote: Its not about how much money you make, its about how much you save Dave Ramsay will not save you from death. Neither will money. Go for a walk in a cemetery. I will try again today: I am a bit suprised that someone as great in poker as you are, can have this fish-logic. There are so many advantages you dont see... I have seen like 2 videos from Ramsay. I don't like his rhetoric. Obviously it is better to save than have a bunch of stupid shit. I'd much rather have a pile of cash sitting somewhere I can access it worth 6-12 months of living expenses than not. Maybe even more to take advantage of outlier events. I mean the guy basically advocates saving money. I don't need a 10 min. video from a caricature to know that. I'd rather spend $1,000,000 on experiences/giving than have $1,000,000 in the bank within reason. I'd rather have a ranch with a bunch of land in Wyoming than a lambo. A lot of land would be a lot to take care of though. I don't want to hire servants. I guess I could get a bunch of sheep and cows (hopefully rescue) to mow the lawn for me and then I could get that border collie I've always wanted. So, $10k–100k USD in a trusted credit union, land in Wyoming, and the rest in Bitcoin perhaps. I don't need savings in my account when I die. I need to live a better life when I am alive. That doesn't mean frivolously spending. I was serious about going for a walk in the cemetery. It is some of my best advice via Heidegger. Hoarding money is for weirdos. Okey, I understand u better now. With 1 million dollar in your account however, you could make a comfortable living on the interest alone for the rest of your life. The technology fond I invest in made 22% per year on average the last 10 years. So in your case, 220.000$ per year. There is no guarantee it will keep doing that, but for sure you could expect - on average - at least 60.000$+. Well, you didnt need to hear this basic stuff from Dave Ramsey. But I did. I saved no money, had no real plan and maxed out my credit card. So credit card companies makes a ton of money because of people like what I used to be. And 70% of americans (norwegians too I think, we have the most dept in the world) are living paycheck to paycheck. When you do start investing and you have things more under control, Dave Ramsey is not the one to listen to. There are other more +EV voices out there for investing and getting out of debt :-)

22% seems ridic high.

You might like this thread:

Is it possible to live off of $1million dollars at age 25?

On July 08 2020 06:12 Stroggoz wrote: 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.

I guess I should have been more precise, I dont mean just critique capitalism I meant a socialist, a new iphone is a form of conspicious consumption is an overpriced top of the line phone where there are many more affordabe options with the same capabilities, its just a status symbol, just like a rolex, an ugly pair of Yeezys or something of the sort, buying these things which their objective is to portrai social status would make a socialist an hypocrite.

The lambo isn't a great example since only 1 of every 100k can even afford it so.

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

Nope, Ive never said is that if you buy objects which its purpose is portray social status then you are not just part of the system but you are part of its uglier bits.

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.

If im talking to Loco and I say leftits I mean leftits like him, not literally every single leftits, this is the same that Drone did and he felt I was refering to him too, its just too tiresome to specify and say "some", "the nazbolsl with eco primitivists tendencies", if I'm not talking to you then I'm probalby not talking about you.

On July 09 2020 03:54 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On July 09 2020 03:22 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On July 08 2020 17:02 RiKD wrote:   On July 08 2020 14:27 VanDerMeyde wrote:   On July 07 2020 02:17 RiKD wrote:   On July 07 2020 01:56 VanDerMeyde wrote: Its not about how much money you make, its about how much you save Dave Ramsay will not save you from death. Neither will money. Go for a walk in a cemetery. I will try again today: I am a bit suprised that someone as great in poker as you are, can have this fish-logic. There are so many advantages you dont see... I have seen like 2 videos from Ramsay. I don't like his rhetoric. Obviously it is better to save than have a bunch of stupid shit. I'd much rather have a pile of cash sitting somewhere I can access it worth 6-12 months of living expenses than not. Maybe even more to take advantage of outlier events. I mean the guy basically advocates saving money. I don't need a 10 min. video from a caricature to know that. I'd rather spend $1,000,000 on experiences/giving than have $1,000,000 in the bank within reason. I'd rather have a ranch with a bunch of land in Wyoming than a lambo. A lot of land would be a lot to take care of though. I don't want to hire servants. I guess I could get a bunch of sheep and cows (hopefully rescue) to mow the lawn for me and then I could get that border collie I've always wanted. So, $10k–100k USD in a trusted credit union, land in Wyoming, and the rest in Bitcoin perhaps. I don't need savings in my account when I die. I need to live a better life when I am alive. That doesn't mean frivolously spending. I was serious about going for a walk in the cemetery. It is some of my best advice via Heidegger. Hoarding money is for weirdos. Okey, I understand u better now. With 1 million dollar in your account however, you could make a comfortable living on the interest alone for the rest of your life. The technology fond I invest in made 22% per year on average the last 10 years. So in your case, 220.000$ per year. There is no guarantee it will keep doing that, but for sure you could expect - on average - at least 60.000$+. Well, you didnt need to hear this basic stuff from Dave Ramsey. But I did. I saved no money, had no real plan and maxed out my credit card. So credit card companies makes a ton of money because of people like what I used to be. And 70% of americans (norwegians too I think, we have the most dept in the world) are living paycheck to paycheck. When you do start investing and you have things more under control, Dave Ramsey is not the one to listen to. There are other more +EV voices out there for investing and getting out of debt :-) 22% seems ridic high. You might like this thread: Is it possible to live off of $1million dollars at age 25?

The source is in norwegian:

https://www.dnb.no/privat/sparing-og-investering/fond/beste-fond.html?WT.mc_id=ppc-google_sparing-brand-fondsnavn&gclid=Cj0KCQjw3ZX4BRDmARIsAFYh7ZJdKkpRxDma5UlU_AOb0HAO7Y8rmubfXuy1EHr2zSgbyMqKZw3Q23IaAmryEALw_wcB

Last 10 years:



2]1]FXALL$$ALL_3935&ClientFund=1&LanguageId=nb-NO&CurrencyId=NOK]https://lt.morningstar.com/vnq5t3n66n/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?SecurityToken=F0GBR04NGU]2]1]FXALL$$ALL_3935&ClientFund=1&LanguageId=nb-NO&CurrencyId=NOK

orange line = reference index

Im sure there are better ones also. Blackrock Technology fond I just started invest in:

2]1]FXALL$$ALL_3935&ClientFund=1&LanguageId=nb-NO&CurrencyId=NOK]https://lt.morningstar.com/vnq5t3n66n/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?SecurityToken=F0GBR04NGU]2]1]FXALL$$ALL_3935&ClientFund=1&LanguageId=nb-NO&CurrencyId=NOK

Thanks for the link :-)

Its time for a random round of political compass memes, everyone post one.

On July 09 2020 00:20 Loco wrote: Right, let's make that distinction, because RiKD has no mental health or addiction issues. Oh wait, he does, and he's been blogging about them for years. So apparently the only distinction left is this fabrication that he's currently unemployed because he "simply did not want to make pizzas anymore." But that has strictly nothing to do with his current situation: he left that pizza job for another job at the time, pre-pandemic. Are you going to morally condemn a person for changing jobs? You've created this completely artificial distinction between the character of some average homeless person and RiKD. If RiKD went to solicit donations he would be humiliating himself and setting himself up for abuse in the same way other homeless people are. He would be there for the same reasons they are: out of desperation. It's an objectively worse way to make money in every possible way than holding down a job. He would start using drugs again in no time, because that's the only way you survive the streets. You just casually told a drug addict who has been successful in avoiding drugs that he should go and put himself in harm's way, in a situation where he would use again, because, what? He posted an article on "simple living" that you didn't like? You're a ridiculous person.

I don't know anything about his drug use but according to him living a good life without employment and hierarchy would make you more successful than all of us. Is being a panhandler worse than being a "wage slave" as he often refers to himself when holding down a job? Dunno why it would be humiliating for him since as you said there is nothing morally reprehensible about receiving donations.

Also that's not very nice to just casually call him a "drug addict," especially if he is in recovery.