Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
How is this related to politics?
The climate on earth has been changing for billions of years. In some places it's getting hotter today. Nobody disputes this simple fact. In some places it's getting colder today. Nobody disputes this simple fact.
What I'm asking is, so what?
The subprime problem was a result of government meddling: Guaranteeing the bad loans it demanded banks make, in conjunction with the Fed driving down interest rates.
I'm not arguing for the bailouts: I've always been against them. I'm simply stating the fact that a lot of the failures were caused by government meddling prior to the bailouts, which I've also obviously been against.
The USA's exports are pitiful in comparison to its imports. To broadly claim that a small increase in a small number of exports because of devalued currency must inherently measure up to a loss of wealth by all members of the nation is... well, a ridiculous stretch at best. Most of the money is given to banks--even foreign banks--anyway. The net loss to the populace is huge. But banks love free money, and banks bribe big.
There will always be lobbyists in one form or another. Driving them underground would as likely make the problem worse. If we keep electing trash, we'll keep getting trash, regardless of whether they have to meet their lobbyists in private. They're already used to using lawyers to handle their bribes; they'll have no problem adjusting to using their lawyers to ensure their dealings are always legal. The practice will remain unchanged. It's better if it's out in the open. At least the knowledge is available this way, even though we (generally speaking) fail to act on it.
twosidedeath death believes that civilization will always exist as it does now. He believes that no government will ever fall again. He believes that no government will ever oppress its people and enslave them again--as they have even in western nations, even in recent history, even in democratic states.
And then there's the fact that governments aren't eternal. They're not all-powerful even when they're around. They cannot and make no attempt to protect you from all harm. And when yours fails you, if you can't protect yourself and your family, they're going to get robbed, raped, murdered, and worse.
Some of us take our lives and the lives of our loved ones very seriously. And we're capable of protecting them. We don't like it when others try to force their incompetence upon us. That others lack the will and capacity to protect themselves and their own is a pretty poor reason for stripping us of our right to protect ours.
He talked on and on about changing the way government worked--corruption, back room deals, giving enforcement agencies the ability to write their own regulations because Congress is too lazy, lack of transparency, etc. He did a 180 on all these promises and more. It's hardly debatable that his administration has failed to live up to... well, any of these promises.
The fact that he changed his promises is funny because he promised change! It's a play on words! Maybe this part was lost on you. And it's funny because it's true!
He's talking about charity.
Forced charity. Communism! 
In Europe, the propaganda that pepper spray and tasers are barbaric is apparently more important than the fact that clubs and choke holds are more dangerous to the target.
We have subversive groups because we're so tolerant and multicultural. The fact that they're combated is clearly a sign that we're an intolerant police state. Tolerance and multiculturalism are obvious signs of oppression!
Einstein,
You take issue with me pointing out the exact type of behavior you commonly resort to yourself.
We can't have a respectful discussion if posters just ignore the biggest points made against their positions. It doesn't matter if I agree with their responses, but to completely ignore the biggest points others make in contradiction to your position is just silly. It's not abrasive and confrontational, but it's similarly disrespectful and, more importantly, makes any discussion selective, juvenile, and absolutely meaningless.
If someone's biggest argument is that you're stating, on principle, that human beings have no right to defend themselves, then it stands to reason you should explain your position and back it up with whatever reasoning and evidence you think is on your side. To claim such a principle but give it absolutely no explanation or backing is not respectful or intelligent conversation.
My pointing out that the claim was made but the implications of the claim _completely_ ignored is a very valid criticism. Since the claim has been made, it deserves inspection. We can hardly evaluate his argument for it when he doesn't provide one. I'm sorry that you find it abrasive that I want to actually talk about a principle that TCO has put forth here. But if I just let the fact that he's given no explanation nor logical justification for this principle, how can I respond to him at all?
You obviously have no problem responding selectively to points made against your position, but those threads are similarly pointless. They contain no thoughtful discussion, at least on your end.
I didn't call anybody names. I merely described statements and ideas. It wasn't a robot, Jesus, or a hypothetical person who made a huge claim then never responded to my questioning it. If you imply that man has no right to defend himself and base your position on this assumption, it's worth examination. If I ask you how you justify this assumption and you ignore it, I'm going to point out the fact.
TCO,
My objection was that your statistics, in absolutely no way, show what you purport them to show. I was clear about this. I used simple language.
At no time did I question your referenced statistics. I explained the logic behind why your statistics are worthless. Since we're clearly steering away from the meat of the matter, I'll presume nobody else had trouble understanding.
I don't need contradictory statistics when I'm not questioning yours. I just pointed out that the statistics you referenced do not show what you claimed they showed. It's ironic you insult my intelligence when you seem to miss this simple point.
I referenced violent crime rates increasing in England and Australia following gun bans. These, too, are statistics anyone can find. They're not sentiments.
The states I mentioned didn't start out being governed by one all-powerful political party with autocratic leadership, their governments turned into that very suddenly.
Your claims that guns cause increased violence and that no democratic state will ever go to hell [again] are the whole of your argument that man has no inherent right to defend himself, his family, or loved ones.
I liked "Return of the Archon."
It was like watching a communist try to actually think about his ideas, the end with the computer blowing itself up trying to comprehend that enslaving people in order to create the "perfect society" doesn't actually benefit them at all.
The money was used to bail out banks who made horrible decisions at the behest of government so they'd shut up about the horrendous overreach of inept/corrupt government into the economy and the massive harm it did to mankind.
Additional value from money was stolen via printing of more money. A bribe was necessary to demonstrate the usefulness of a corrupt government to banks so they'd shut up about the horrendous overreach of inept/corrupt government into the economy and the massive harm it did to mankind.
Socialists, Communists, Republicans, Democrats, and many others are all in on such thievery. Bankers and other rich elite benefit from these government heads who are all for sale. They're all in agreement on matters of government power and fiscal policy: They want the power to control markets and people. They want the power to enrich themselves via their government power.
The thread's title is misleading. The rich aren't directly robbing the poor. They're doing it through government which the poor ignorantly elect.
Additionally, it's misleading because it's not "the poor" who are being robbed but "the working." Tens of millions of able-bodied poor in the USA don't work but collect government income. Nothing can be stolen from them because they produce nothing. The working are being robbed by the elite, and the poor are complicit because they keep reelecting the elite in exchange for handouts.
The rich don't have votes; the poor do. The poor elected Bush. The poor elected Obama. The poor are going to elect Romney or Obama again. Democracy's a bitch when people are stupid.
It's just that bizarre that you would claim that modern western states somehow aren't capable of turning really ugly.
You don't have to go back into history beyond people living today to find a number of HUGE examples of atrocities enabled by disarmed populaces. Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong gave wonderfully harmonious reasons for why their little baby citizens didn't have the right to defend themselves either. They didn't say "We're going to socially engineer some things that you won't like, so you can't have these." Or "We're going to kill tens of millions of you. It's necessary. We'd better take these or you might interfere with these necessary sacrifices." They said "You clearly don't need these. The potential for violence is too high. Obviously, guns make people violent. You can't seriously think your government will do something terrible in modern times!" Just like you are.
Mankind hasn't magically developed since these very recent events. Man thought himself quite advanced and civilized at the times. But tyrants seek power and ignorant people gullibly give it to them. If anything, the false sense of enlightenment and security of modern man has enabled bigger atrocities than were possible hundreds and thousands of years ago. This isn't just theoretical: We've seen it happen repeatedly.
You've tactfully ignored the fact that you're arguing that man does not have the inherent right to defend himself. There's a very serious principled discussion you're just glossing over.
And the fact that you've cited statistics which are not evidence that guns promote crime, yet presented them as if they were. I guess there's no serious discussion you're skipping here. That was a pretty straight-forward insult to everybody's intelligence, as well as an admission that you're not very principled in your methods of persuasion.
hahahhahahahahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahahahahah
Love it. Promises change. Changes promise.
I love the ignorance of people that buy into all this garbage. I have friend who graduated from a pretty prestigious university with a masters in international relations at like age 21 (some years ago) who thinks all the crap is true. It's unimaginable to an academic that barbarians, warlords, and the powerless don't respect weakness, concessions to genocidal slave-masters, and a general lack of any values, principles, or the will to stand behind them.
It's unimaginable to her that the things she values as an academic aren't valued by world leaders (tyrants and tyrant wannabes) and the usually poor and uneducated people of the world. Give them a bunch of vague talk of compromise, moves toward NWO government, and moves toward an international welfare state, and academics applaud. Clearly the whole world rejoices at such sophisticated and socially just nonsense!
Too bad it means nothing except more tyranny, oppression, and control. But that's okay. To most academics (intellectual lightweights), that's a good thing. Obviously smart people like them and Obama (and third world dictators, which many leaders of western countries today want to be) can run things better than free markets. It just hasn't been done right. Tyranny can work! Just give them another chance and they'll show you.
I'm not suggesting Bush was a genius or particularly respected, but Obama is the laughing-stock of the world. I'm not arguing who was worse, only that Obama is an embarrassment to the American people. What kind of leader gives billions to his enemies? Bush and Obama. What kind of leader bombs a foreign nation (Libya) for the interests of another foreign nation (China)? Obama. What kind of leader subsidizes foreign oil companies with tens of millions while banning domestic oil companies from drilling in the same region? Obama.
These things aren't political, they're just stupid. They're only overlooked by "thinkers" because thoughts risk social acceptance, and damnit everyone KNOWS we just need the right academic authoritarian to save us from all this democracy and free markets. Democracy is fine, as long as there are enough socialists to consistently elect the best candidate.
Oh my god he spoke to the police, what provocation!
I loved the suggestion concerning the illegal parking. And the fact that he was as hypocritical and lazy as the man filming suggested.
This is why we need limited government and less pigs worried about little shit.
Poley, are you suggesting you're going to start removing them now? We've been waiting quite a while for this.
TCO is essentially arguing that mankind has no right to defend itself--That you and I have no right to protect ourselves or our loved-ones. I find this more than a little disturbing.
And he's doing it with completely misleading references to facts which don't logically show what he presents them as showing.
The first part is morally offensive, the second is intellectually (and generally) offensive.
I'm happy to view any argument with an open mind.
But when you completely ignore the fact that many people earn much more than they otherwise would have _because_ they're ethical, _because_ they're cooperative, and _because_ they innovate, that's just stupid. All three of these qualities frequently contribute to people's success.
And then, on top of that, ignoring the fact that many people are unsuccessful _because_ they have no work ethic, _because_ they're creepy with no regard for morality, _because_ they're not compassionate toward others is just stupid as well.
One could argue that, somehow, there are better values/morals/genetics among the poor, but absolutely no evidence of that has presented here. Furthermore, it would have to be so much evidence that it overrode the fact that these positive, desirable traits are rewarded in the free market and, generally, are rewarded with more success.
The OP doesn't even make the argument that needs to be made. The OP simply states "The poor have more desirable culture/genetics, so government ought to forcibly reward them for having more children." Nevermind the fact that the USA already does this, or that there are massive moral implications of the taxation of [who SHOULD be] FREE people to pay for this: There's absolutely no basis for these presumptions even mentioned here. There's not even a mention of supposed reasons, let alone ANY argument, let alone STRONG arguments.
I think threads like this would be better if they contained complete thoughts. "Poor people are superior, so government should forcibly socially engineer to produce more of them" is not an argument, it's a bizarre statement with no rationale behind it.
As always, 100% content, 0% personal. Cry about it.
There's nothing special about "firearms related" crimes vs the same crimes w/o firearms. If you ban firearms and robberies with firearms go down X amount and robberies without them go up the same amount, nothing has been accomplished.
It's offensive to ignorantly mislead people with such nonsense statistics. "Firearms related murders went down!" is not a logical basis for any conclusion when non-firearm-related murders go up as well. Violent crime rates increased in England and Australia with the passage of very restrictive gun laws. Funny how you're not discussing these facts.
There are massive cultural differences between the USA and European states. Again, ignoring this fact and presuming that differences in firearm laws is the source of the discrepancies in crime rates is, again, offensive.
We're not idiots. Making downright stupid arguments in the hopes that we're too dumb to be able to identify the plethora of logical fallacies you've thrown at us accomplishes nothing but to demonstrate that you're either not very knowledgeable of the case you seek to make or don't believe you can logically make it.
So you want citizens to be slaves to the state without means to protect their rights, and you want citizens to be slaves to the state without means to protect themselves from others who become unhinged. I have an idea. Let citizens shoot people who become unhinged. 50 people will never be injured and killed in a massacre if you don't try to enslave people and restrict their freedom to defend themselves. The slavery you advocate is a solution to a problem you create. Good reasoning.
Coincidentally, it's been the first things tyrants did in the 20th century before they went on to commit genocide. Do you factor this in when doing the math, so studiously, concerning saving lives with firearms laws? I suspect that task was too daunting and threatened your conclusion, which was already based on useless selective data, so you just didn't bother.
History is boring. Maybe we can just pray real nice and nobody will ever harm us and we'll have no need to protect ourselves or the people we love. Hey, if someone we love gets hurt or killed, we'll just pull the pansy card. Taking care of yourself is so last-century. You might suffer psychological symptoms if you act in a life-threatening situation and save someone's life. Better they die than you have to deal with stress over the fact that shit does, in fact, happen.
In the 21st century, we're all incompetent little babies. We don't deserve to be able to protect ourselves. Our lives just aren't worth it to the state. The state is god.
Your presumptions that the poor tend to be more ethical, innovative, and cooperative are as unfounded as they are stupid.
Your presumption that slavery is more beneficial to the slave than freedom is offensive and ignorant.
To base any conclusions on evolution on such stupid and ignorant logic, therefore, would probably harm the crap out of mankind.
As always, 100% content, 0% personal. Cry about it.
That's just abstract theorizing because you've never been able to convince a female to get near you. 
Your assumptions are baseless except for your own experiences of being a wuss afraid of your bloody scooter after a beer.
You're making broad claims about people with absolutely no basis other than this. If that's intelligence, my name's Miles Davis.
On top of this, you know absolutely nothing about alcoholism or addiction. Yet, though I have pointed this out, you keep making ridiculous assumptions.
"I only mentioned mine because it ticks me off when someone starts ridiculing someone they know very little about"
Consider how you look, making all these huge assumptions about something you know nothing about. I'm not ridiculing you and your supposedly high intellect and the frightening fact that someone as oblivious to reason as you is studying for a Ph.D: I'm ridiculing the idea that anyone with a science backround would be so stupid as to come to grand conclusions with absolutely no knowledge of a subject those conclusions are about. I know that you've done this and continue to do it. I don't need to know anything else about you to know that it's ridiculous.
You_Fool,
You're entirely wrong and you know it. Hypothesizing and testing to confirm that increasing carbon dioxide in a carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and dioxide mix increases energy retention in a box does not, to any extent, magically prove it has such a simple effect on earth.
This presumption first ignores that it's a matter of comparison. Not all retained EMR would have been reflected away from earth otherwise.
Then this presumption ignores that there are systems on earth which promote balance. If more EMR trapped increases heat, increased heat vaporizes more water, more vaporized water forms more clouds, more clouds reflect more EMR and decreases heat. Your proof-in-a-box-proves-things-on-earth claim completely ignores complex systems like this on earth.
Maybe you're right. Maybe increased carbon dioxide will cause a magical heat explosion. But any claim that a test in a box proves anything about earth is ridiculously ignorant and unscientific. The substances and systems in a box are drastically different than those of earth. Duh.
Einstein,
I made the simple point just fine. Others' lack of reading comprehension of ignorance of basic scientific principles is not my problem. I don't care if a first-grade reading level is appropriate, I'm not going to go that low.
It's also a very flawed measure of intelligence for multiple reasons. But saying that would require a lengthy explanation in this thread.
The typical motorcyclist is not alright having one or two before riding? As opposed to what? Most drivers are? You're just making random assumptions with no basis. Your theory is filled with completely unfounded assumptions. That you're afraid of your scooter after one or two beers is not indicative of a trend for riders to drink less.
Motorcycle riders are not magically exposed to less opportunities/chances to drink than anybody else. You have absolutely no basis for your assumption that riders have less exposure to alcohol. That's not logic; it's an assumption. And it has no basis.
Alcoholism is addiction. It's not about exposure. It's not a cold. You don't up your chances for it by being exposed to a few more drops of alcohol. Again, that's not logic; it's an assumption. And it has no basis.
I didn't miss your point: Your hypothesis is laughable. You know absolutely nothing about addiction or alcoholism. I've pointed this out already, but your IQ doesn't seem to be adequate to register this important fact.
Sorry, he's busy crying about me. He didn't respond to you at all. In my defense, we can be reasonably certain he was going to ignore your rational argument either way.
It's ironic that he says he can do what I do. I would have responded to [almost] literally every statement you said that I disagreed with and explained how/why. I would have met every argument you made with what I agreed with and didn't, and explained why I still hold a contrary position despite whatever concessions I made of your points. I'm pretty sure if he was remotely capable of talking about content and responding to arguments, he'd surely have tried it by now.
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.