Stuff you just can't make up

Re: Stuff you just can't make up

Trump is not an American; he doesn’t even know what that statement means.

Trump is a “traitor” and even though he doesn’t know what that means either, I pray you do

smr wrote:Please pass the gun oil because I have got to oil my gun! Daryl, he's upset because their are billionaire's out in the real world and he's poor.(His own words) Let's not pamper this snowflake too much! One problem, he is scared to go out and prove that his system of Communism will work. He plays the role of a victim rather than a man of action. Your right, he does have impressive English skills. (I wish I had those English skills!) Daryl, God Bless and have a nice day!

No, he is upset because there are people who have more money than they can spend in a lifetime - and a majority of those people doesn't lift a finger to help others, all they are interested in is amassing more money. Anyone with a functioning moral compass and an inkling of reasoning power would realize that on the whole that attitude can't be good for a society at large.

And you, professing to be a good Christian - perhaps you need to contemplate Luke 10:25-37. From what you write I can only come to the conclusion that you only pay lip service to your "faith".

The E wrote:The only way to reclaim a measure of balance is to collectivize. To use the tools of government to make sure that noone gets trampled into dust.

Yep, it’s so much better when the government does the trampling. With tanks.

The E wrote:What I hate about capitalism is that its most successful participants are utterly immoral and bereft of compassion and humanity.

And they’d be so much better if they were government officials. Capitalism did not make ‘em that way. They will seek power in any form that it exists.

The E wrote:And this is where your ignorance comes into play. Under communism, you still have property rights. Your labor still belongs to you. What you do not have is the right to use your property to extract labor or wealth from others.

My tenant is entirely satisfied with the service she gets in exchange for her rent. You could tell her how terribly I’m exploiting her, if you wanted her to laugh in your face. That condominium is my private property, and I have the right to rent it out. She’s had the right to move out any time in the last six years if she wasn’t happy.

Or is housing another one of those things you believe should be provided by the state? Ever heard of The Projects?

Suppose I buy some machine tools and start making, and selling, custom engine parts. Is it wrong for me to own the means of production? Who should own those tools then? Business gets too big for me to do all the work myself, so I buy more tools and hire a couple of machinists. You consider that wrong?

Do you consider it wrong for a building contractor to own his own tools? They are definitely his means of production.

The E wrote:Remind me, does your justice system still punish possession of small amounts of weed harder and harsher than causing economical instability responsible for uncountable amounts of damage?

Holy shit, look out the window for flying pigs! We actually agree on something! Of course, that’s a problem caused by the government, and perpetuated in large part by political contributions from the prison workers and law enforcement unions. The unions, not the officers.

The E wrote:Corporations: Well duh.

What an eloquent argument.

The E wrote:Socialized health care is a great success.

Tell that to the people who died waiting for medical care from the V.A. Oh, wait, you can’t. Your hero Bernie Sanders ran the V.A. for ten years while covering up that scandal.

Tell it to all the Canadians who’d rather pay for treatment in American hospitals than wait for their ‘free’ treatment in Canada.

The E wrote:State-owned infrastructure works much, much better than privatized infrastructure.

The people who’ve died in the collapses of state-owned bridges might beg to differ with you, if they were still around to do so. There is a bridge half a mile from my uncle’s house that was condemned in 1997 after a railing broke off and almost killed somebody. People have been driving an extra five miles ever since to get around a thirty-foot crick. The county has yet to do anything about getting it fixed. There is no sign that they ever will.

The E wrote:Completely tax-funded education produces better results for a lower cost.

Except for those inconvenient private and vocational schools that do a better job for two-thirds the cost. Of course, they don’t have trophy-winning football teams, or multiple levels of bureaucrats paid five to eight times more than the teachers.

The E wrote:gun owners: Go ahead, own all the guns you want. I don't care -- however, I will point out that gun ownership does not actually make you safe (only gun usage will do that, to a point)

Except that I’ve seen you holler for ‘gun control’ as vehemently as you rant against capitalism.

I consider self-defense a universal human right. Guns are by far the most effective self-defense tools in existence. That might be why the police have them.

The E wrote:if you have to own a gun to feel safe when amongst other humans (or even just living next to them), something has gone terribly wrong.

Ah, yes, your fellow human beings like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Gary Ridgeway, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez… Sure, nothing to be concerned about. There are only a few million other violent criminals on the loose. I only see what they do on the news every fucking night. Buying a gun and learning to use it properly is a sensible precaution, just in case things do go terribly wrong.

Saw a double murder on the news last night. Known violent criminal with multiple prior convictions broke into a house, killed a woman and her boyfriend. Three different people looked right into the TV camera and said: “That sort of thing never happens in our nice, safe little neighborhood!”

Uhhh…it just did, you dumbshits. Wake the fuck up.

The E wrote:How can there be a free and independent press when corporations own the tools and distribution mechanisms?

Because they’re not all owned by the SAME corporation. That’s what independent means.

The E wrote:Oh, is that what happened in the Great Depression?

That was a herd of lemmings running off the cliff. Yeah, bad thing. Laws were put in place to prevent a repeat, and they’ve worked for 90 years. Regulation, not nationalization.

The E wrote:Is that what happened in the recent crash?

That one was caused by the government. Specifically, Bill Clinton’s ‘Community Reinvestment Act’ of 1999 which REQUIRED banks to make loans to people lacking the means to pay them back. The bubble they inflated kept most of them afloat until Billy was safely out of office, and the Democrats tried to blame it all on Bush Jr. Then they compounded the stupidity by bailing out the most irresponsible banks and rewarding the bastards that cashed in the biggest. We should trust everything to the government, why?

The E wrote:Only if the control mechanisms are kept clean and functional. Do yourself a favour and investigate the term "regulatory capture", would you?

Yup, I know all about it. Nationalizing the stock exchange won’t help, though. That would just give them the means to reward themselves.
———————————
Margaret: "Where's your costume, dear?"
Wednesday: "I'm a homicidal maniac. We look just like everybody else."

Imaginos1892 wrote:My tenant is entirely satisfied with the service she gets in exchange for her rent. You could tell her how terribly I’m exploiting her, if you wanted her to laugh in your face. That condominium is my private property, and I have the right to rent it out. She’s had the right to move out any time in the last six years if she wasn’t happy.

I am pretty sure that some slave owners were less terrible to their slaves than others, but that does not change the fundamental injustice and immorality of slavery.

I am also completely sure that you are a good and fair landlord, but can you say the same for every landlord out there? Can you honestly make the claim that every landlord in your county is as good and fair as you are?

Or is housing another one of those things you believe should be provided by the state? Ever heard of The Projects?

I believe it is the state's duty to ensure that enough housing exists so that every citizen can live in peace and quiet, yes.

Suppose I buy some machine tools and start making, and selling, custom engine parts. Is it wrong for me to own the means of production? Who should own those tools then? Business gets too big for me to do all the work myself, so I buy more tools and hire a couple of machinists. You consider that wrong?

Do you consider it wrong for a building contractor to own his own tools? They are definitely his means of production.

So you do not actually understand what "ownership of the means of production" means.

In your example, you are slowly transitioning from you, a worker, owning the means of production and profiting off them, to you being a capitalist, using your ownership of the means of production as a way to extract work and capital from others. By hiring employees, you are creating a class division between you and them; You hold power over them.
Under communism, where the means of production are a good shared among society, you would seek collaborators to scale up your production, sharing in the success of your product as equals.

(This, by the way, is one of the major ways in which communism addresses the sociopath problem; hierarchic relationships are much harder to exploit when they are the exception, not the rule)

Holy shit, look out the window for flying pigs! We actually agree on something! Of course, that’s a problem caused by the government, and perpetuated in large part by political contributions from the prison workers and law enforcement unions. The unions, not the officers.

I think you've mistyped "prison corporations", it came out as "unions" instead.

The E wrote:Corporations: Well duh.

What an eloquent argument.

Why be more eloquent than necessary? Everything I said about rich humans applies even more so to corporations: Once they become so big that government warps around them, they become a threat and a liability for society at large. After all, we recognize sociopathy and lack of empathy in humans as an issue and a warning sign; It is a bit curious that those same traits are rated as positive when corporations exhibit them.

The E wrote:Socialized health care is a great success.

Tell that to the people who died waiting for medical care from the V.A. Oh, wait, you can’t. Your hero Bernie Sanders ran the V.A. for ten years while covering up that scandal.

I believe I already pointed out that your version of socialized health care is a complete clusterfuck.
However, in countries where those systems aren't undermined by minarchists, they're working great.

The E wrote:State-owned infrastructure works much, much better than privatized infrastructure.

The people who’ve died in the collapses of state-owned bridges might beg to differ with you, if they were still around to do so. There is a bridge half a mile from my uncle’s house that was condemned in 1997 after a railing broke off and almost killed somebody. People have been driving an extra five miles ever since to get around a thirty-foot crick. The county has yet to do anything about getting it fixed. There is no sign that they ever will.

Sounds like an american problem to me. Also, if publically owned infrastructure doesn't work, please explain how this would be better if the bridge was privately owned?
While answering that question, do take care to explain how a private entity will do an inherently better job of maintaining the thing, and what incentives such an entity has to keep prices low.

See, the problem here is that the pressures of the market make infrastructure ownership inherently undesirable. Owning infrastructure means a lot of fixed cost with little to no "natural" growth potential; whether or not traffic across that bridge increases or not has little to do with the bridge itself, after all. If a corporation owns a bridge, they have an incentive to skimp on those fixed costs while extracting more wealth from the people who use it; If the state does, no such incentives exist, since states are not bound to operate on a for-profit basis.

The E wrote:Completely tax-funded education produces better results for a lower cost.

Except for those inconvenient private and vocational schools that do a better job for two-thirds the cost. Of course, they don’t have trophy-winning football teams, or multiple levels of bureaucrats paid five to eight times more than the teachers.

Again, an american problem.

Education for profit is a curious thing: What recourse does a customer have if the service they paid for does not bear the promised result? By what metric are individual teachers measured?
Education, by itself, does not and can not provide profit. The return on investment for comprehensive education is measured on a societal level, not on the level of the school; Running a school for profit introduces incentives that run counter to the goals we, as a society, have in requiring children and young adults to undergo education in the first place.

The E wrote:gun owners: Go ahead, own all the guns you want. I don't care -- however, I will point out that gun ownership does not actually make you safe (only gun usage will do that, to a point)

Except that I’ve seen you holler for ‘gun control’ as vehemently as you rant against capitalism.

It is possible to believe that gun ownership in and of itself isn't much of an issue provided it is properly regulated, you know.

I consider self-defense a universal human right. Guns are by far the most effective self-defense tools in existence. That might be why the police have them.

A very american answer. We don't have the perceived crime problem around here that you guys have, it seems; I've never once felt insecure enough to make gun ownership for defensive purposes necessary (and given that gun ownership is strongly correlated with serious or even fatal accidents involving firearms, I think I'm safer not having one).

The E wrote:if you have to own a gun to feel safe when amongst other humans (or even just living next to them), something has gone terribly wrong.

Ah, yes, your fellow human beings like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Gary Ridgeway, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez… Sure, nothing to be concerned about. There are only a few million other violent criminals on the loose. I only see what they do on the news every fucking night. Buying a gun and learning to use it properly is a sensible precaution, just in case things do go terribly wrong.

You do know that what you see on the news is not an accurate representation of reality? Murders and murderers and manhunts make for good TV; "Everything is mostly fine" does not.

Saw a double murder on the news last night. Known violent criminal with multiple prior convictions broke into a house, killed a woman and her boyfriend. Three different people looked right into the TV camera and said: “That sort of thing never happens in our nice, safe little neighborhood!”

Uhhh…it just did, you dumbshits. Wake the fuck up.

Turn off the TV. I mean this sincerely, turn off the TV and get off the constant stream of tragedy and disaster it blasts at you, you'll lead a happier life. You're getting a distorted view of reality because you keep seeing tragedies from all over your country and our monkey brains are really bad at keeping perspective.

The E wrote:How can there be a free and independent press when corporations own the tools and distribution mechanisms?

Because they’re not all owned by the SAME corporation. That’s what independent means.

Being dependant on ad revenue is very much not being independent. And if you're not dependent on ad revenue, you're dependant on another corporation fronting you the money for what you're doing; In which case you can't really be independent when it comes to news about your corporate overlord, can you?

There are signs on the horizon that truly independent quality journalism can still work, but journalism as a whole is still caught deep in a trap of free or cheap content; The value perception of journalism as a public good that deserves to be paid isn't there anymore, because we've been trained to expect it to be offered for free.

The E wrote:I am pretty sure that some slave owners were less terrible to their slaves than others, but that does not change the fundamental injustice and immorality of slavery.

Not only are you too stupid to know the difference between employment and slavery, now you believe tenants are slaves as well. I do believe your idiocy is impenetrable.

The E wrote:Under communism, where the means of production are a good shared among society,

Which in effect means 'owned by the government' just like in all those failed communist states.

The E wrote:I think you've mistyped "prison corporations", it came out as "unions" instead.

Nope, it's the unions. We have 'public employees unions' that exercise inordinate control over the government, not only through massive political contributions, but by 'endorsing' candidates, effectively dictating to their members who they must vote for. And all of it is paid for with our tax money.

The E wrote:It is possible to believe that gun ownership in and of itself isn't much of an issue provided it is properly regulated, you know.

Here in the U.S. 'properly regulated' is leftist Newspeak for 'ban private ownership of guns completely'. Read their own statements where they admit exactly that.

The E wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Ah, yes, your fellow human beings like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Gary Ridgeway, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez… Sure, nothing to be concerned about. There are only a few million other violent criminals on the loose. I only see what they do on the news every fucking night. Buying a gun and learning to use it properly is a sensible precaution, just in case things do go terribly wrong.

You do know that what you see on the news is not an accurate representation of reality?

Which part of that do you claim is not true?

The E wrote:Turn off the TV. I mean this sincerely, turn off the TV and get off the constant stream of tragedy and disaster it blasts at you, you'll lead a happier life.

Right, ignore reality. Stick your head in the sand, or wherever. You'll be much happier, right up until it bites you on the ass.

The E wrote:You're getting a distorted view of reality because you keep seeing tragedies from all over your country and our monkey brains are really bad at keeping perspective.

That particular tragedy was less than ten miles from my house. That's the perspective I get. Everybody is certain 'it jest caint happen here' until it does.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Not only are you too stupid to know the difference between employment and slavery, now you believe tenants are slaves as well. I do believe your idiocy is impenetrable.

I was making a hyperbolic analogy. Do you not understand even simple rhetoric?

Here in the U.S. 'properly regulated' is leftist Newspeak for 'ban private ownership of guns completely'. Read their own statements where they admit exactly that.

Yes, regulation does mean bans.

I'm not sure why you think I was unaware of this.

Which part of that do you claim is not true?

The part where you are under the impression that criminals willing and able to inflict bodily harm on you are everywhere.

Right, ignore reality. Stick your head in the sand, or wherever. You'll be much happier, right up until it bites you on the ass.

No, get perspective. If I was to believe the news, I'd be under the impression that refugees are dangerous criminals, when in reality they're more law-abiding than german citizens.

The news industry runs on outrage, scandal and tragedy. If you'll let it, it'll completely distort your view of reality.

That particular tragedy was less than ten miles from my house. That's the perspective I get. Everybody is certain 'it jest caint happen here' until it does.

That doesn't invalidate my point, though.

The news cycle is dominated by stories that, taken together, make it seem as if there's a lot more murder and crime and tragedy than there really is (because, again, we are really bad at keeping perspective on these things).

Also, just putting it out there, but the fact that you think that you, personally, having to be ready, able and willing to kill another person lest they kill you is a sign of how deeply, utterly sick and broken the country you live in is.

The E wrote:I was making a hyperbolic analogy. Do you not understand even simple rhetoric?

I understand misuse of language, and I do not respect such underhanded attempts to derail logic with unthinking emotion.

Incidentally, the way you used it made it a metaphor. A fatally flawed metaphor.

The E wrote:The part where you are under the impression that criminals willing and able to inflict bodily harm on you are everywhere.

Not everywhere. But, they CAN be anywhere. They ARE somewhere, right this minute. They WILL kill over a dozen people today, if it's statistically average. I choose to take a few simple precautions.

The E wrote:Also, just putting it out there, but the fact that you think that you, personally, having to be ready, able and willing to kill another person lest they kill you is a sign of how deeply, utterly sick and broken the country you live in is.

There are criminals committing murders in every country. Denying reality is the sick and broken response.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Not everywhere. But, they CAN be anywhere. They ARE somewhere, right this minute. They WILL kill over a dozen people today, if it's statistically average. I choose to take a few simple precautions

And that number is as high as it is specifically because of the laws gun rights supporters insist be in place to supposedly "protect" people.

Refer to: Every developed nation that doesn't do things that stupidly as the counter example.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I understand misuse of language, and I do not respect such underhanded attempts to derail logic with unthinking emotion.

I'm going to take the fact that you seemingly can't go past these rhetorical devices without immediate and visceral emotional responses as a compliment.

Incidentally, the way you used it made it a metaphor. A fatally flawed metaphor.

Is it?

Landlords and Employers both hold power over their renters and employees respectively. While most civilized nations have long since recognized that renters and employees do have rights that need to be protected and that there is a power imbalance in these relationships, that imbalance is still present.

The thing you can't seem to get your head around is that, while an employee is in theory free to choose their employer (and a renter is in theory free to choose a landlord), the reality can be markedly different: As an employee, my ability to choose an employer is dependant on factors that are not entirely in my ability to control; If I can't move to where the labour is, I can't take jobs, if the field I specialized in has ceased to exist, I need to retrain (and likely take a pay cut while doing so).
If you are a skilled worker in a growing field, then yes, you can choose employers at will and everything's fine. But if you're not (and do keep in mind that whether or not you are is not entirely in your ability to control!)? You're kinda fucked.

Similarly, if you make enough money, you are free to choose where and how you live. But if you don't, you are at the mercy of the landlord; If he decides to increase rent for spurious reasons, you rarely have a lot of recourse against him, and your choices are rather narrow.

It is not slavery. As I said, it's much gentler than that and, on the surface level at least, much more equitable, but at the lower end (you know, where slaves used to be) the difference in practice is very small.

Not everywhere. But, they CAN be anywhere. They ARE somewhere, right this minute. They WILL kill over a dozen people today, if it's statistically average. I choose to take a few simple precautions.

How many days, on average per year, are you training to defend yourself against an assailant? How often do you train scenarios involving an intruder in your home, or being attacked on the street? How realistic are those scenarios?
How much time and money does this training cost you, both to pay the trainers and in opportunity cost?
How confident are you in your ability to assess a situation and react appropriately?

In other words, how "simple" are those precautions, really? And how secure do they actually make you?
Owning a gun does not make you safe. Carrying a gun will not make you safe. Only using a gun will.

There are criminals committing murders in every country. Denying reality is the sick and broken response.

Insisting that the only "reasonable" response to there being people willing to kill is to be willing to kill yourself sounds pretty fucking savage and uncivilized to me.

Once again, moderation is everything.
Extreme points and examples just alienate the other debaters.
For The E, I'm not sure how even in a perfect communist state you can get around the dissatisfaction of working and renting. Does it really matter if it is the state that employs you or houses you? I've worked both for private employers and as a public (civil) servant for the state, and found the situation to be similar. As a landlord I do try to keep my tenants happy as an empty house is not paying me anything. Surely you don't expect the state to supply free housing? We have state Housing Commission houses (like the UK's council houses) yet their tenants still need to pay some rent.
For Imaginos, on the topic of guns for defence, I'd use the European analogy. Centuries ago all European cities were walled as they needed to be for defence against marauding armies and invaders. Now that they have standing armies, police and are virtually one country the walls are curios for tourists. Similarly in virtually all developed countries (bar the US) gun laws and society norms have negated the need to have guns for domestic defence. In our country a single shooting makes headlines for days, and is nearly always between criminal gangs, with common citizens not involved. If I was living in some parts of the US I might have a self defence gun as well, but I prefer our system, as guns don't come with a force field guaranteeing safety anyway.