Trump thread part 2 (Or anything else we want to talk about that's ridiculous in politics today)

[Captain Red Eye]

Seriously out there. I’m not even sure how to respond to you

You could begin by answering some questions about whether you think the present justice system functions well or not.

Do you think Hunter Biden being pardoned is a display of a highly functioning justice department with liberty and justice for all?

Do you think that same "justice system" was used unjustly to fuck with Trump?

Also cut the crap with the "out there" shit. There's nothing untruthful about anything I've said to you. If you think the truth is "out there" you're in denial.

 

[Hiddenjems]

Other countries don't have to demand that their citizens give a shit.

Isn't that curious?

Other countries aren’t prosecuting people for giving a shit on a subway.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Other countries aren’t prosecuting people for giving a shit on a subway.

Other countries that have subway trains don't have the homeless problem that we do, so there is less shit on the trains.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

Other countries that have subway trains don't have the homeless problem that we do, so there is less shit on the trains.

you're right. many of them have terrorist problems on their subways that we don't have.

 

[Hiddenjems]

Other countries that have subway trains don't have the homeless problem that we do, so there is less shit on the trains.

In my rural corner of America I see zero homeless people.

The kind of people that run cities think that giving money to their drug addict adult children is helping them. Any attempt at actually fixing a problem upsets people so it must be bad.

 

[eastcoastjoe]

You could begin by answering some questions about whether you think the present justice system functions well or not.

Do you think Hunter Biden being pardoned is a display of a highly functioning justice department with liberty and justice for all?

Do you think that same "justice system" was used unjustly to fuck with Trump?

Also cut the crap with the "out there" shit. There's nothing untruthful about anything I've said to you. If you think the truth is "out there" you're in denial.

Do i think people in power abuse their power ? i sure do. But that happens everywhere. So because of that lets abolish the justice system ? Im still waiting to hear this grand plan you have that you called free market competition.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

In my rural corner of America I see zero homeless people.

That's probably not going to be the case soon.

 

[Hiddenjems]

That's probably not going to be the case soon.

Anyone is welcome to dinner, we eat at 5:00pm. After that I’m not telling them where to go, but they can’t stay here.

 

[Microbeman]

To not commit murder. To not commit theft.
To not violate my neighbor's choices if they aren't violating mine. Those are good principles.

Marta?

Yes, I wish Marta had stopped in your hypothetical story but my wishes don't grant me rights I don't have to MAKE Marta stop.

stopped?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Do i think people in power abuse their power ? i sure do. But that happens everywhere. So because of that lets abolish the justice system ? Im still waiting to hear this grand plan you have that you called free market competition.

Imagine if you had said, "sure that auto mechanic is a known rip off artist, but we can't just bring our car to a cheaper more ethical mechaniic".

Imagine if you had said, "sure I know those cooks sometimes spit in my food and the waitress is surly but we can't just try another place to eat".

I bet you'd bring your vehicle to another place or do the repairs yourself.
I bet you'd try another place for breakfast or stay home and cook your own food.

Why would you then stay with a service provider that claims to be "the justice system" if they frequently and publicly failed to deliver justice?

In any other service scenario most people would try a competitor if they thought one service supplier was doing a poor job.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

stopped?

Yes, in your hypothetical story, wasn't Marta the one who didn't want to stop the car she and Gusto were in to assist the ailing motorist ?

I wish she had stopped and helped, while recognizing, the ailing motorist had no right to MAKE her stop.

 

[audiohi]

In my rural corner of America I see zero homeless people.

The kind of people that run cities think that giving money to their drug addict adult children is helping them. Any attempt at actually fixing a problem upsets people so it must be bad.

what a town

you and your neighbors are millionaires despite not going to college, everyone voted for trump including the lesbians, there are no homeless, and no one is addicted to opioids

and everyone is welcome for dinner at 5pm.

 

[Microbeman]

Yes, in your hypothetical story, wasn't Marta the one who didn't want to stop the car she and Gusto were in to assist the ailing motorist ?

I wish she had stopped and helped, while recognizing, the ailing motorist had no right to MAKE her stop.

But she was being forced to stop by Gustavo, not by the ailing motorist. This was her imposed/forced payment to Gustavo's motivated responsibility.

EDIT; I originally thought I was posting this little metaphor in the Luigi thread. The dialogue going forum wide confused my tiny brain,

 

[Nextgeneration73]

Very important for our youth. Figuring out which one of the 25 genders they are is already too complicated. It’s not fair to our youth

Now I see who reported the bear in the woods meme in the funny not so funny memes thread, it was the Farmer, 2 Genders is sometimes complicating enough we don't need 26

 

[Captain Red Eye]

But she was being forced to stop by Gustavo, not by the ailing motorist. This was her imposed/forced payment to Gustavo's motivated responsibility.

So Gustavo is a potential wife beater, who tells his wife she better stop to help possible drunks that had an accident? Couldn't Gustavo simply have asked Marta to let him out of the car so he could help?

In the example below, I might have added under the Fallacy section, "or other person who claims a right to control your body.

Statist Claim: The State owns you.​

Fallacy:​

Statist: "You are not self-owned; you are owned by society, the State, or some other collective entity."

Response:​

Self-ownership is a fundamental principle of libertarianism (and voluntaryism); on it is based Natural Law and the Non Aggression Principle.

There are a few writers that have made the case for objective self-ownership, i.e., that a person has a right (primary, superior) claim on their own body, to control it, use it exclusively, not be harmed, and retain their own production, if peaceful.

Rothbard's case, from The Ethics of Liberty is quoted below; Kant's Categorical Imperative is somewhat similar, and Rand also has a derivation of man's rights.

Let us … concentrate on the question of a man's ownership rights to his own body. Here there are two alternatives: either we may lay down a rule that each man should be permitted (i.e. have the right to) the full ownership of his own body, or we may rule that he may not have such complete ownership. If he does, then we have the libertarian natural law for a free society as treated above. But if he does not, if each man is not entitled to full and 100 percent self-ownership, then what does this imply? It implies either one of two conditions: (1) the "communist" one of Universal and Equal Other-ownership, or (2) Partial Ownership of One Group by Another—a system of rule by one class over another. These are the only logical alternatives to a state of 100 percent self-ownership for all.

Let us consider alternative (2); here, one person or group of persons, G, are entitled to own not only themselves but also the remainder of society, R. But, apart from many other problems and difficulties with this kind of system, we cannot here have a universal or natural-law ethic for the human race. We can only have a partial and arbitrary ethic, similar to the view that Hohenzollerns are by nature entitled to rule over non-Hohenzollerns. Indeed, the ethic which states that Class G is entitled to rule over Class R implies that the latter, R, are subhuman beings who do not have a right to participate as full humans in the rights of self-ownership enjoyed by G—but this of course violates the initial assumption that we are carving out an ethic for human beings as such.
What then of alternative (1)? This is the view that, considering individuals A, B, C…, no man is entitled to 100 percent ownership of his own person. Instead, an equal part of the ownership of A's body should be vested in B, C…, and the same should hold true for each of the others. This view, at least, does have the merit of being a universal rule, applying to every person in the society, but it suffers from numerous other difficulties.

In the first place, in practice, if there are more than a very few people in the society, this alternative must break down and reduce to Alternative (2), partial rule by some over others. For it is physically impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal share of partial ownership over every other man. In practice, then, this concept of universal and equal other-ownership is Utopian and impossible, and supervision and therefore ownership of others necessarily becomes a specialized activity of a ruling class. Hence, no society which does not have full self-ownership for everyone can enjoy a universal ethic. For this reason alone, 100 percent self-ownership for every man is the only viable political ethic for mankind.

But suppose for the sake of argument that this Utopia could be sustained. What then? In the first place, it is surely absurd to hold that no man is entitled to own himself, and yet to hold that each of these very men is entitled to own a part of all other men! But more than that, would our Utopia be desirable? Can we picture a world in which no man is free to take any action whatsoever without prior approval by everyone else in society? Clearly no man would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly perish. But if a world of zero or near-zero self-ownership spells death for the human race, then any steps in that direction also contravene the law of what is best for man and his life on earth. And, as we saw above, any ethic where one group is given full ownership of another violates the most elemental rule for any ethic: that it apply to every man. No partial ethics are any better, though they may seem superficially more plausible, than the theory of all power-to-the-Hohenzollerns.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

what a town

you and your neighbors are millionaires despite not going to college, everyone voted for trump including the lesbians, there are no homeless, and no one is addicted to opioids

and everyone is welcome for dinner at 5pm.

 

[Hiddenjems]

what a town

you and your neighbors are millionaires despite not going to college, everyone voted for trump including the lesbians, there are no homeless, and no one is addicted to opioids

and everyone is welcome for dinner at 5pm.

Somehow even the junkies have a place to sleep.

It’s almost like it’s way better than a city.

 

[Microbeman]

So Gustavo is a potential wife beater, who tells his wife she better stop to help possible drunks that had an accident? Couldn't Gustavo simply asked Marta to let him out of the car so he could help?

Perhaps Gustavo did request this. Perhaps Marta decided that to trust Gustavo's judgement was the best price to pay. That responsibility overrides charity. Who was driving?

BTW you replied/quoted prior to my edit indicating I had unintentionally posted in this thread.

 

[Microbeman]

Somehow even the junkies have a place to sleep.

It’s almost like it’s way better than a city.

There are no (or only occasional) homeless where I live and junkies are employed.

 

[Hiddenjems]

There are no (or only occasional) homeless where I live and junkies are employed.

I live on one of the largest oil and gas deposits in America. Anyone with an old family farm is a millionaire. Hell 4-5 acres will get you $35k every 5 years.

There are also 50 year old men living in moms basement or garage cutting grass for dope money.


A 50+ year old gay woman told me she’s scared to death that adults meant to support her would tell her she’s really a man if she grew up nowadays.

We have true diversity.