Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Roundy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 11, 2021, 03:25:30 PM »
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

Yep, there's the problem.

I believe you that you're lazy. It doesn't surprise me really. But most people have aspirations for more than the bare minimum to survive. Indeed, that's why capitalism is supposed to work in the first place.
I think you are totally missing the point.

I am not most people.

I work every day.

Nobody is paying me to stay home and not work.

But most people are not, because as I pointed out earlier, a couple making twice the median income in the US by not working will not work for less.

I get paid about the median income in the US.

I have a house, two cars, a few Thork-like sport bikes, a couple of guitars, and riding mower to take care of the grounds.

But I work for it because I want those things.

When I don't want them anymore, I will work enough to get what I want.

I don't believe anyone owes me a goddamn thing, unlike you.

Hmm. I'm trying to square this away with your claim that you wouldn't work if the government paid you to do nothing. I assume you recognize that you wouldn't be able to afford all those things on the government till.

So you felt it important to work hard to get those things, but if the government was paying you the bare minimum to survive you wouldn't have and would have just been content sitting home, doing nothing and owning nothing of value?  ???

That's just weird, lackey. Again I don't think most people feel the same way.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 11, 2021, 03:03:37 PM »
If the government is paying me enough to live, then work be damned.

Yep, there's the problem.

I believe you that you're lazy, lackey. It doesn't surprise me really. But most people have aspirations for more than the bare minimum to survive. Indeed, that's why capitalism is supposed to work in the first place.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 11, 2021, 02:03:47 PM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-leader-and-gop-critics-will-erased-says-lindsey-graham-2021-5

Notice he says "erased". Not "cancelled". Because cancel culture is totally evil and purely a liberal thing, but having your political enemies erased is perfectly fine, nothing wrong with that, THEY'RE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS OKAY??

And speaking about erasing political enemies totally isn't imagery reminiscent of Stalin-era Communist purges. No not at all.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 10, 2021, 05:47:33 PM »
here's how trump can still win

https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-recount-gop-state-senator-disowns-shambolic-process-2021-5

Quote
A GOP state senator in Arizona described the controversial vote audit in Maricopa County as "ridiculous" and an embarrassment in an interview with The New York Times on Friday.

Sen. Paul Boyer, a Republican who represents a suburb of Phoenix, told the publication that he initially supported and voted for the audit but that he regretted doing so after seeing how poorly it was being conducted.

"It makes us look like idiots," Boyer said. "Looking back, I didn't think it would be this ridiculous. It's embarrassing to be a state senator at this point."

"I didn't think a sham audit in an attempt to overturn a long-ago decided election would be so ridiculous!" Yeah, he should be embarrassed. I would say live and learn, but being as he's a Republican I wouldn't hold out much hope.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 06, 2021, 12:37:54 PM »
Could you elaborate on that? I fail to see the difference - both carry the exact same implication, and were done with the same intention. The main difference, it seems, is that orange man bad. Other than that, we only have the small difference of Trump trying to get his name on the cheques, and Biden trying to publicly announce how much he doesn't want his name on the cheques because he's so much better and purer than Trump.

Biden's letter contains information that is clear, correct, and relevant, but inappropriate to include in that context. Trump's signature, however, doesn't communicate any information, and so feels manipulative, like a psychological trick to try and make people associate their check with Trump without actually making a logical case for why Trump deserves credit for the check. To put it another way, both presidents took advantage of sending out these checks for their own political gain, but Biden was upfront about it while Trump did it in an underhanded way.

In both cases the President is saying, "Hey, look what I did for you!" This is precisely what the media excoriated Trump for, and it's also precisely what Biden's letter is meant to accomplish. I feel like you are performing some Tom Bishop level feats of mental gymnastics to justify it (or even say "It's not that bad, guys") in Biden's case.

In fact, is it the case that Trump didn't send self-congratulatory letters as well? I didn't remember that, but if so what Biden did may actually be objectively worse! I, like most people, never received a paper stimulus check. I got that letter though!

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 06, 2021, 01:33:55 AM »
I think there's an appreciable difference between the president including a self-congratulatory letter with the check and insisting that his own signature be on the check itself.

I don't.  It's a negligible margin at best. It might expose Trump as more of a narcissist, but there's nothing inherently "wronger" about it.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 05, 2021, 05:12:17 PM »
So lackey, do you feel like your security wouldn't be infringed on if you knew your next-door neighbor was in possession of a live nuclear weapon?

I wouldn't feel like my security was intact, personally. I wouldn't feel very safe at all. Yet this is a weapon of mass destruction controlled by the world's governments.

And now you're strawmanning when you point out that shooting food is a natural act, lol. I never tried to say you shouldn't be allowed to own a shotgun. But try eating something you've shot a hundred rounds through with a repeating assault weapon, lol.

I also never said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon for self- defense. I said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon whose only conceivable purpose is war or murder. I don't see how it's unnatural to impose such a restriction. Clearly people being allowed to own such weapons violates the security of others; you only have to watch the news from time to time to see that.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 05, 2021, 04:43:41 PM »
Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.
It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.
Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

So then there are limitations on free speech after all. I'm sorry if you felt like I was strawmanning by restating what you said, but clearly some clarification was needed as this is literally the opposite of what you were arguing just a couple posts ago.
No, it isn't.

I asked you politely to quit making this stuff up.

Now, I am just going to report it.

I know you realize the exercise of free speech and all other rights is predicated on the realization that others have those same rights.

How does this relate to yelling "Fire!" in a public theater? In what way does doing so infringe on the free speech of others?

Quote
Someone stepping in to regulate or otherwise infringe on those rights is just plain wrong. It is incumbent on the individual to exercise them within nature.

It isn't natural to yell fire when a fire doesn't exist.

In what way is it natural to own a weapon designed for the mass murder of other human beings? If you feel this is strawmanning feel free to point out how. I'm just trying to understand your train of thought here.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 05, 2021, 04:18:16 PM »
Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.
It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.
Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

So then there are limitations on free speech after all. I'm sorry if you felt like I was strawmanning by restating what you said, but clearly some clarification was needed as this is literally the opposite of what you were arguing just a couple posts ago.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 05, 2021, 03:51:51 PM »
Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.
It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM »
Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 05, 2021, 01:12:49 PM »
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/facebook-trump-decision-05-05-21/index.html

At least he has his cute lil blog to gaslight his followers from now.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 05, 2021, 12:43:05 AM »
Politicians and narcissism is pretty iconic.

And after all the backlash against Trump by the media for (essentially) the same thing; I got the letter days ago and this is the first story I've seen about it. But there's no media bias oh no.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 04, 2021, 11:48:54 PM »
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/04/echoing-trump-biden-sends-letter-stimulus-check-recipients/4929873001/

  ::)

Just as lame and self-serving as when Trump did it. I fucking cringed when I saw this letter in the mail.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 03, 2021, 08:02:53 AM »
It's not really a scandal that has anything to do with Trump though. I don't see the point in devoting several pages to gloating about the fact that one of the hundreds of Washington personalities with their nose up Trump's asshole is involved in a scandal that has nothing to do with Trump in a Trump thread.

But I guess it's nice that the orange man himself has faded enough into irrelevance already that this is what we're talking about here now.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 01, 2021, 04:27:14 PM »
Wait, is it possible that Gaetz was working with the Democrat Satanist pedophiles all along?

17
Trump's still talking. Isn't it nice being able to just ignore him?

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: New Georgia Law and Corporations
« on: April 07, 2021, 07:24:47 PM »
Republicans have known their party was dying for years. They are getting more and more corrupt in general in their desperate bid to hold on to power. They're being more blatant now than ever in their attempts at voter suppression because they have no choice. And it will only get worse as the country gets less white.

I'm not saying the Republican Party is dying real soon, but it's dying, and it's only these desperate stabs at voter suppression that are keeping them relevant. One popular vote win in the last eight presidential contests is all you need to know to understand why they are so desperate.

It must be frustrating that they can't hide it anymore. I think that with social media and the publicity that's been generated around the Georgia voting laws more people are aware of what the Republicans are doing than ever before. It doesn't matter, because they will probably continue getting away with it, and they will definitely continue to be a dying entity. But at least we get entertaining little episodes like Mitch Mcconnell having conniptions over corporations daring to get involved in politics, after arguing just a few years ago that they should be treated as people and have that very right. We already knew that Mitch Mcconnell is a hypocrite; they all are. But I love these little reminders.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: April 04, 2021, 05:56:53 PM »
Tom needn't worry. Mike Lindell says Trump will be president again in August and if anyone seems to know what he's talking about it's that guy.

20
why should anyone be afraid of aliens when they most liklley are not real, we have no evidence anything lives on another place besides earth.

That's my point. Speculation about aliens amounts to science fiction until we see some kind of concrete evidence that they even exist; it is fantasy. I'm not any more concerned about aliens than I am about other fantasy creatures that we don't have evidence exist like vampires or werewolves or God.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78  Next >