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

[igrowone]

This kind of speech sounds a bit shallow and simplistic to me, Yeti, with all due respect, but what point are you trying to get at with this speech? With this "respect my freedom" talk you can defend any absurdity, it's like wanting to cross a red light and thinking it's wrong to be fined for it, claiming it's against your freedom, you don't live alone in the world, you weren't born alone, you live in society and every society has rules, the question is what rules these will be, because there will always be rules.

Besides, I don't know of a system that forces people to do things they don't like more than capitalism, especially if you're poor.

 

[Cannavore]

precisely why i'm against homeschooling. they're grooming their kids on PragerU type shit lmao.

every kid should be forced to go to public school or trade school. private and homeschools should be 86'd

 

[RobFromTX]

Control and conquer at all costs. Thats the Ashkenazi way

 

[Hiddenjems]

Voting should only be in person, on paper, with photo Id.

 

[Hiddenjems]

precisely why i'm against homeschooling. they're grooming their kids on PragerU type shit lmao.

every kid should be forced to go to public school or trade school. private and homeschools should be 86'd

Like I said. If you want to indoctrinate kids, make your own.

You’re always going to have less say in how others raise their kids than your own.

If you want people to believe men get pregnant, make your own kids and teach them whatever crap you want. But you can’t tell other people they have to teach kids the bull shit you believe.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

a family of geniuses i'm sure

Your favorite "genius" Sam Seder told you to argue for democracy and against democracy if the first argument failed. You should pick better a genius to follow.

Also you are afraid to engage me, because every time you do the weight of your arguments fighting against your other arguments crushes your little soul.

just block him lol

Cognitive dissonance can cause a person to dislike the messenger. If you could, you would make a good argument, but we know your only "argument" is that your ideas are so good they are the ones that should be forced on other people.

That's the exact same argument the people you oppose use.

 

[RobFromTX]

Cognitive dissonance can cause a person to dislike the messenger. If you could, you would make a good argument, but we know your only "argument" is that your ideas are so good they are the ones that should be forced on other people.

That's the exact same argument the people you oppose use.

Hes not going to understand any of that lol

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Hes not going to understand any of that lol

I'll eat a little happy candy, have a glass of wine and try to dumb it down for him.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

We’re Finally Seeing the “Evidence” Against the Migrants Deported by Trump. It’s Unbelievable.

The Trump admin said a soccer player had a gang tattoo. It’s a tattoo of Real Madrid’s logo.

slate.com

 

[Rakkasan]

Elon now crying that democrats burning teslas don't have any empathy after declaring 2 weeks ago on the Joe Rogan show that empathy is a fundamental weakness.

 

[MangueBeat]

Also, society and a coercion-based government are not the same thing. Any society that embraces coercion is a society that needs to change.

They may not be the same thing, but coercion exists in any society. It starts in education itself with parents/uncles/tutors/friends/teachers/trainers/shamans/chiefs/acharyas/call them what you want, every place/society/activity together has its rules and rules are coercive.
The very idea of always wanting to change society as long as it does not conform to your ideal is already coercive in itself, or do you not see the contradiction? There is no way to escape this.

I do live in this world, like billions of other individuals and I don't assume their consent or force them to obey me, if they are otherwise peaceful and disinterested in my ideas. Should there be fewer people like that or more people like that?

I am not arguing that everybody has to be anything but respectful to others. Why can't some people be "voluntary commies" wherein they are commies only with willing participants etc. ?

But the point is not to "obey" me or you. Society is not about me, or you, but about the whole.

I didn't understand about "voluntary communism", communism is a change in society's production system, and this is not done individually.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

the great yeti is respected

Thanks.

I'm personally fallible but still like to present principle-based ideas for consideration. I expect many people will recoil at them, but I don't expect many of the ideas to be refuted. Often people disparage me rather than rebut the arguments. Doesn't bother me too much.

Sometimes it does feel like it's 1830 and I'm an abolitionist.
Some ideas take a while to replace the contradictory ones that people cling to.
I am patient though. Unwashing brains is messy work.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

rules are coercive.

Rulers are by definition coercive. A ruler is a person or system that doesn't care if you object, they assume your consent even when none is given.

Sometimes people mistakenly refer to rulers as "leaders", they are not the same thing. People can't get away from rulers without being punished. Leaders are freely chosen by individuals and that process doesn't use coercive means. There is a difference.

Rules can be coercive or not. Since I own myself and you own yourself, you could make a rule about your own body or your own justly acquired property that doesn't coerce others. A rule only becomes coercive when you attempt to rule that which isn't within your right to do so.
There is a difference.

 

[Hiddenjems]

Elon now crying that democrats burning teslas don't have any empathy after declaring 2 weeks ago on the Joe Rogan show that empathy is a fundamental weakness.

When psychopaths are attacking you, empathy for them is a weakness.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

 

[MangueBeat]

Rules of the road set by those who own a given road are not the same as rulers that go beyond making rules about that which they rightfully own and intervene into nearly every aspect of your life.

I can obey a persons rules about how to use their road without needing a set of overlords to tell me what I can put in my body or a host of other orders that subordinate me to them for practically anything and everything else.

Rulers are different than rules.

But rules are rules, rules come from rulers, and this does not change whether they come from the government/state or from a billionaire who owns the highway. In fact, the economic elite and the bourgeois state/government kind of complement each other. In my country, private and state-owned companies have similar quality, but the private sector is always more expensive and always finds a way to evade taxes. It is bizarre that you accept rules from a billionaire slave-owning heir who has never worked in his life and whose family fortune was built over centuries of exploitation and death, but you think it is absurd to accept state rules, when these rules were often financed by the very billionaires that you, for some bizarre reason, do not oppose.

Rules of the road set by those who own a given road are not the same as rulers that go beyond making rules about that which they rightfully own and intervene into nearly every aspect of your life.

I can obey a persons rules about how to use their road without needing a set of overlords to tell me what I can put in my body or a host of other orders that subordinate me to them for practically anything and everything else.

Rulers are different than rules.

Nobody has the right to rule over others, everyone has the right to rule over themselves and make rules about their justly acquired property.

Then you put individual freedom in the middle of a discussion about society... Wanting to smoke a joint or grow weed without being repressed is one issue, wanting to say anything without being repressed is another issue not related to de first, state rules in general are another issue too, and so on, you can't deal with these topics in a simplistic, shallow and personalistic way putting everything in the same basket as if it were all the same thing, because it is not.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

But the point is not to "obey" me or you. Society is not about me, or you, but about the whole.

I didn't understand about "voluntary communism", communism is a change in society's production system, and this is not done individually.

A collective of people can only have the same rights as any person within the collective.

It's impossible for individuals to aggregate nonexistent rights which none of them have as individuals and delegate those nonexistent rights to a body politic or "society".

I can show you the math if you like. Please don't confuse the power of a majority with the rights of a majority. There is a difference.

Involuntary Communism is a tool for some people to control other people against the wishes of those other people. Means of production and economic theories are not justifiable if they negate the consent of peaceful people. If negating the consent of peaceful people was a societal mandate, carry that illogic out and gang rape would not be seen as a bad thing, would it?

Society is a collection of individuals, some who hold similar ideas and some that don't. There is nothing in my ideas that would prevent peaceful people from cooperating, but everything in my ideas to prevent them from forcing their ideas on others who are disinterested but remain otherwise peaceful.

 

[Hiddenjems]

But rules are rules, rules come from rulers, and this does not change whether they come from the government/state or from a billionaire who owns the highway. In fact, the economic elite and the bourgeois state/government kind of complement each other. In my country, private and state-owned companies have similar quality, but the private sector is always more expensive and always finds a way to evade taxes. It is bizarre that you accept rules from a billionaire slave-owning heir who has never worked in his life and whose family fortune was built over centuries of exploitation and death, but you think it is absurd to accept state rules, when these rules were often financed by the very billionaires that you, for some bizarre reason, do not oppose.



Then you put individual freedom in the middle of a discussion about society... Wanting to smoke a joint or grow weed without being repressed is one issue, wanting to say anything without being repressed is another issue not related to de first, state rules in general are another issue too, and so on, you can't deal with these topics in a simplistic, shallow and personalistic way putting everything in the same basket as if it were all the same thing, because it is not.

Where does the states power come from?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

It is bizarre that you accept rules from a billionaire slave-owning heir who has never worked in his life and whose family fortune was built over centuries of exploitation and death, but you think it is absurd to accept state rules, when these rules were often financed by the very billionaires that you, for some bizarre reason, do not oppose.

Can you show me where I said any of that?

I do not consent to the present paradigm and never will.

 

[MangueBeat]

Rules can be coercive or not. Since I own myself and you own yourself, you could make a rule about your own body or your own justly acquired property that doesn't coerce others. A rule only becomes coercive when you attempt to rule that which isn't within your right to do so.
There is a difference.

Yep you own your body, but you don't own the world. Capiche? And you don't even live alone in the world, which is what you don't seem to understand. Your actions impact the environment around you and future generations, so no, you can't simply "do whatever you want with your property", this egocentric ideal is very bizarre. You will cease to exist in a few years, but the impacts of your irresponsibility will continue on the next generations, you CANNOT (or shouldn't be able to) simply pollute a river, for example. That's why there are RULES that must be followed and it doesn't matter if someone thinks this is "coercive" or not. I'm not discussing your individual freedom in terms of drug use, I'm discussing much bigger and more important things than that.