|
quote:Capitalism has nothing to do with business or money. It's a social system based on individual rights and objective morality, and the only just social system ever conceived by mankind. What is objective morality? It's an oxymoron. I'm surprised Word didn't put a green squiggly line under that.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Any chance this guy knows how dumb he is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:Any chance this guy knows how dumb he is? He has too much faith in his own faculties to know that -- that's why he believes that his morality is objectively correct. BTW, nothing's less manly than clinging to the trappings of masculinity like a shipwreck survivor clinging to a piece of driftwood. Also, speaking as a lady, beards are gross. Western civilization (you know, the same civilization Randroids claim to love) agrees with me:    
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:The question posits that you are a racer who continues to eat meat even in the face of such regulations, causing you to lose races and prize money. Why would you, as a rational person, continue to eat meat under such a system? It's really a stupidity/stubbornness tax. Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Glitterbomber posted:Of course, more titles=more accomplishments=more worth, duh. It's just a totally logical and not at all pathetic way to present yourself as a well rounded person with skills that are totally applicable to pretty much every part of modern life. Braggart Kobayashi posted:This is probably getting dangerously close to dogpiling, but here's another So, he's insulting almost the entire military other than a very small portion of special forces who are allowed to wear beards to comport with local cultures in the Middle East? Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:22
|
|
from the same guy. When I first read it, I laughed, because I thought the deadpan tone and delivery was hilarious. Then I read about "capitalistic morality" and realized he was serious.
|
I think it's extra funny because if we met he would consider my beard an outward sign of objective masculine morality or whatever other word soup congeals in his brain, when in fact I have a beard because I'M TOO loving LAZY TO SHAVE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:BTW, nothing's less manly than clinging to the trappings of masculinity like a shipwreck survivor clinging to a piece of driftwood. Also, speaking as a lady, beards are gross. Western civilization (you know, the same civilization Randroids claim to love) agrees with me: 'Western civilization' has lasted for a long time, and fashions have changed back and forth. So you get Roman emperors with beards...  Marcus Aurelius ...and neckbeards...  Nero ...you have generals with pony tails and powdered wigs...  Frederick the Great  George W. ...and by all means, I consider all of these to be representative of masculinity in western civilization. Maybe Nero had a bit of over-compensation going on with the horse races and gladiator fights. But the guy killed her own mother, give him a break. The thing is, none of these people are recorded in history claiming that beards or powdered wigs made them more masculine or anything. They just went with the fashion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
quote:The first step in the socialization process is to acquire universal suffrage (giving everyone in the state the right to vote), then expropriating private property (exorbitant taxes), abolishing inheritance (the ability to increase inheritance taxes substantially), creating a National Bank (the Federal Reserve), organizing factories to control profits (too big to fail government takeover or unionization), providing free education and health care … this process will be the fastest way to facilitate the socialization of Europe. I never knew letting everyone vote was basically communism if you think about it
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Neptr posted:What is objective morality? It's an oxymoron. I'm surprised Word didn't put a green squiggly line under that. Okay, so he is an expert capitalist after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
I kind of want to see videos of his fencing just to see what swords he uses, maybe the longsword or the saber or maybe it would be him hacking at something with a samurai sword and looking proud when he chops a cucumber in half with one blow. Proud swordsman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Furikku posted:I wonder how he feels about men that can't grow facial hair. Andy's got this! Some guy named Brian posted:What about those who are plagued with the inability to grow anything? Andy the Objectivist posted:@Brian
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
 Andy thinks my fundamental nature is being a neckbeard. Not cool, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:
The nature of man is facial hair- in a word, neckbeard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
If all that's true how do they explain the correlation between smug atheism and beards? [ed] Seeing answers from Andy made me think I was in the Conservapedia thread for a second but I think my question is probably still relevant to the kind of people who would assert the inherent goodness of beardness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
So, according to Andy's logic, who's manlier: Karl Marx OR  Fidel Castro
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:So, according to Andy's logic, who's manlier: Castro. Marx didn't have the US trying to kill him for decades in increasingly cartoonish schemes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:The nature of man is facial hair- in a word, neckbeard. Is man not entitled to the beard of his neck?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
William Bennett is always terrible, but today he wrote an article about education for CNN. As soon as I saw the author I had a pretty good idea of what he was going to say, and I wasn't wrong. He hit all the points you would expect a hardcore conservative education "expert" to make:
Bonus feature: have the latest from my school newspaper's resident college libertarian idiot columnist! Double bonus: he looks like this e: formatting Pedestrian Xing fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Pedestrian Xing posted:William Bennett is always terrible, but today he wrote an article about education for CNN. As soon as I saw the author I had a pretty good idea of what he was going to say, and I wasn't wrong. He hit all the points you would expect a hardcore conservative education "expert" to make: Gaah. There should be a rule that when you, as a tub thumping conservative moralist whose bestselling book bears the title "The Book of Virtues", are exposed as a degenerate gambler, you should shamble off into hiding and never be seen again. And if you do venture onto any public forum, anyone appearing with you should be obligated to comment on the source of your public shame at every appearance. Pedestrian Xing posted:Bonus feature: have the latest from my school newspaper's resident college libertarian idiot columnist! So is this guy like a big Drudge wannabe? Including in-the-closet status and everything?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
The greatest part of the "capitalism is" test posted uptread was this:quote:Q: The first loving sentence of the constitution posted:in order to...promote the general welfare gently caress you got mine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:The greatest part of the "capitalism is" test posted uptread was this: Anarcho-capitalists generally are not huge defenders of the Constitution. They want no state beyond that which enforces contracts. This is never going to happen because states are instruments of class power and the bourgeoisie isn't going to give up its state without simultaneously losing its property.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 07:08
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Anarcho-capitalists generally are not huge defenders of the Constitution. They want no state beyond that which enforces contracts. This is never going to happen because states are instruments of class power and the bourgeoisie isn't going to give up its state without simultaneously losing its property. If the state only enforces contracts, wouldn't that automatically favor the rich since they would be able to hire better lawyers to write contracts in their favor?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
Why shouldn't the state favor the rich? They're better than us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Why shouldn't the state favor the rich? They're better than us. It's this kind of thinking that led to the guillotine being very well used in France during a certain period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
The lady who thinks there's a "War on Men" is back, with a whole bundle of straw men (or straw feminists) to demolish. Also, a few more bucketloads of  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:The lady who thinks there's a "War on Men" is back, with a whole bundle of straw men (or straw feminists) to demolish. Also, a few more bucketloads of "Just because you can do the same job a man can do doesn’t mean you need to let him know it." Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:The lady who thinks there's a "War on Men" is back, with a whole bundle of straw men (or straw feminists) to demolish. Also, a few more bucketloads of It's like she is a female Nice GuyTM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:The lady who thinks there's a "War on Men" is back, with a whole bundle of straw men (or straw feminists) to demolish. Also, a few more bucketloads of "Males, on the other hand – in general – are loners. They’re content to mill about in their man caves. They like to hunt. They like to build things and kill things. If you don’t have a son, this may sound strange. But again, that doesn’t make it untrue – nor does the fact that not every single man in the world is like this. Men also take pride in caring for their families. They can’t carry babies or nurse them, but they can provide for them. So let them." Ah I see, building things is a solitary enterprise now. Brb, going to build the Empire State building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Last summer I took a job in a warehouse that would involve lifting heavy things and be very manly. Then I found out that women worked there too and my balls shriveled and my penis dropped to the floor like a sausage nobody would eat. One of the women ran over it with a forklift commenting it was no big loss. I shed a tear for every man trapped in this crazy vagina world. God bless women who know they don't have penises.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
brakeless posted:Last summer I took a job in a warehouse that would involve lifting heavy things and be very manly. Then I found out that women worked there too and my balls shriveled and my penis dropped to the floor like a sausage nobody would eat. One of the women ran over it with a forklift commenting it was no big loss. I shed a tear for every man trapped in this crazy vagina world. God bless women who know they don't have penises. Grow a beard, dumbass. Well if body hair is a sign of masculinity, I dare say she probably could! VVV Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
My mom could beat up your dad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
Here's another awful article from Nick Kristofquote:Op-Ed Columnist Oh and guess what this self appointed savior of women around the world has to say about a woman pregnant with twins who is about to lose her job quote:Look, there are no magic wands, and helping people is hard. One woman I met, Anastasia McCormick, told me that her $500 car had just broken down and she had to walk two miles each way to her job at a pizza restaurant. That’s going to get harder because she’s pregnant with twins, due in April.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
quote:That is a burden on taxpayers, of course, but it can be even worse for children whose families have a huge stake in their failing in school. Those kids may never recover: a 2009 study found that nearly two-thirds of these children make the transition at age 18 into S.S.I. for the adult disabled. They may never hold a job in their entire lives and are condemned to a life of poverty on the dole — and that’s the outcome of a program intended to fight poverty. [citation needed] How long does it take to get on SSI these days?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:Here's another awful article from Nick Kristof Kristof is the loving worst, and I hate the fact that he's an Orientalist with an Asian waifu and that lets him make blanket statements like Asian people don't care about sports, only number crunching and school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Reminder that he had own documentary on PBS about "Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide" http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/half-the-sky/ but still peddles in stereotypes about "welfare queens"
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:Here's another awful article from Nick Kristof Why do people who are anti-welfare believe this? Women in poverty are not dating wealthy eligible bachelors. They are dating men from their own neighborhoods and social classes. Two impoverished people getting married will not make them a middle class family. They are still going to be poor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
Do they realize that the "no working man in the house" clauses of welfare weren't put there by the left?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:[citation needed] Not just that, but what percentage of children who are disabled and whose parents receive SSI for them are actually being kept out of school and literacy programs in order to keep the checks coming in? What is the threshold at which point we say, "Sorry, disabled kids, you don't get help, because X% of other people trying to get in the same program might not fully deserve it?" This is the same bullshit logic behind enacting voter ID laws because there are a handful, at most, of cases of in-person voter fraud each election cycle, even though they demonstrably disenfranchise thousands of legal voters. I'm not denying that fraud and robbing children of schooling to get SSI happens, but just because it occurs doesn't mean the entire SSI program for children is a failure and should be abolished. If anything, Child Protective Services should be called in when teachers and other people suspect this is what's happening because it's obviously child neglect/abuse. We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because a few parents are lovely. quote:About four decades ago, most of the children S.S.I. covered had severe physical handicaps or mental retardation that made it difficult for parents to hold jobs — about 1 percent of all poor children. But now 55 percent of the disabilities it covers are fuzzier intellectual disabilities short of mental retardation, where the diagnosis is less clear-cut. More than 1.2 million children across America — a full 8 percent of all low-income children — are now enrolled in S.S.I. as disabled, at an annual cost of more than $9 billion. There are leaps in logic here as well. Just because only 1% of poor kids were on SSI decades ago doesn't mean that only 1% should have been receiving it, nor does it necessarily mean that the subsequent 7% increase is due to parents committing fraud to get SSI checks or otherwise unworthy children and their families getting SSI. The science of mental health and developmental disorders has dramatically changed over that same period, which means that we understand different kinds of problems better than we did before and we're better at identifying these problems and can identify them earlier in life. So, when Kristof derisively refers to "fuzzier intellectual disabilities short of mental retardation," he's really just being either ignorant of modern science or intentionally deceptive. He's insinuating an endemic, widespread problem of people fudging the numbers and committing fraud to get checks, rather than acknowledging a wider range of childhood conditions which are rather disabling and costly for families, but which don't fit our traditional stereotypes of "disabled." quote:That is a burden on taxpayers, of course, but it can be even worse for children whose families have a huge stake in their failing in school. Those kids may never recover: a 2009 study found that nearly two-thirds of these children make the transition at age 18 into S.S.I. for the adult disabled. They may never hold a job in their entire lives and are condemned to a life of poverty on the dole — and that’s the outcome of a program intended to fight poverty. Again, more leaps in logic are being made, as these people could generally actually need this help in adulthood and it could have little to nothing to do with the program itself. There are plenty of mental health and developmental conditions which are pretty disabling in adulthood, including autism-spectrum disorders, but these conditions weren't really researched or known very well decades ago, previously resulting in many mostly disabled adults falling through the cracks because they didn't meet the strict criteria for public assistance based on the incomplete science of the time. Most egregiously, he's committing a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy" by implying causality. These kids having been on SSI as children and later as adults doesn't necessarily mean it was the program itself which caused these kids to be disabled adults. Honestly, doesn't it seem quite logical that kids who were disabled enough to meet the strict requirements for federal assistance as children might still have those same conditions and problems as adults and therefore still need assistance after they turn 18? Many disabling developmental conditions aren't really curable and are really just about management with the current state of medicine and science, and we shouldn't stop helping people with these problems just because there might be some level of abuse for the programs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
Rising health care costs and declining or stagnating incomes would make this worse. You can spend 100 percent of your total income on respite care (literally what respite care for my half-sister would have cost my mother if the state hadn't paid for it) or whatever, or you can stop working and do it yourself. If you do the latter, even if you don't have any government assistance at all, there's still a chance you might be able to make a few bucks churning out poo poo SEO articles at home or something. Or you could do what the Republicans clearly want you to do, and expose your infirm relatives on a mountaintop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 10:59
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Or you could do what the Republicans clearly want you to do, and expose your infirm relatives on a mountaintop. Even that could be hard to do in Appalachia. Mountaintops are becoming rarer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
You can rebuild the mountains with dead cripples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 14:03
|
|