Total posts: 1,971
-->
@FLRW
OMG, I thought those were balls!
Yeah, I can see that now, but I, for one, am happy I initially saw boobs rather than a ballsack…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Thanks for that. I hate being on the outside of an inside joke about one’s outie… or is it Audi— a masterpiece of German engineering?
Created:
-->
@Allah
Yeah, whatever, Allah. Ya got a massive bosom in your avatar (in its current form).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Created:
Check out the bodacious ta tas on Allah!
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Similarly, just because I have owned you, that does not mean that I can legally stop you from claiming to anyone who will listen that your argument is unassailable.
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
I’m sure this will explain everything:
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Your argument can be owned; that’s for sure.
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Custody
cus·to·dy
/ˈkəstədē/
noun
the protective care or guardianship of someone or something.
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
From post 10:
“parents have custody of their children.”
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
“have custody of”
Created:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Parents dont own their children.This claim is true, because opposite claim is absurd. We cannot say that parents always own their children, since that would allow unspeakable crimes. We also cannot say that parents sometimes own their children, because who gets to decide what sometimes is? Government doesnt own children either, neither does society. So there is no one who can decide this.
This is sort of like claiming “Museums don’t own their artifacts. This is true because otherwise, a museum could theoretically be allowed to destroy an artifact, and we know that isn’t the case.” But museums do have a sort of ownership of their artifacts. Similarly, pet owners… own their pets. This doesn’t mean they can do whatever they want with them legally.
These legal relationships are more accurately described by the phrase “have custody of.” Museums have custody of their artifacts; pet owners have custody of their pets; and parents have custody of their children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Listen to this whole song (2023) with headphones and then tell me if you've changed your mind.
If this is your thing, I suggest checking out these two prodigies (well, they WERE prodigies in their youth) if you haven’t already:
Devin Townsend
Mike Patton
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Serial murder lends itself to evasiveness because there is usually no connection between the killer and his victims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
I was hoping readers of that quote would note the intense irony of the source.
Created:
Posted in:
“The unprovoked aggression against Iran has no grounds and no justification whatsoever,”
—Russian President Vladimir Putin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LucyStarfire
Never heard of him.
Precisely the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
When Bon Jovi is superior to most of today’s popular music, you know the industry has gotten bad.
I can think of no better illustration of the downward spiral of quality in popular music than to watch the musical guests on “Saturday Night Live” over the last several decades…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
What do you think, dear atheist? Have you ever thought about what it would happen if you accept that God exists? I tell you what would happen. Nothing. It's worthless. So, next time a religious guy tells you that there is a God, just reply "yes, I agree" and turn back to your duties. Be happy.
Exactly.
This describes apatheism perfectly. “A god exists? Ok, now what?” If god is some vague, undefined, non material whatever that one cannot prove nor disprove, then “so what?” If god is the supreme omnipotent creator spirit of the universe who inspired a certain scripture, then prove it, and good luck with that. In the meantime, I will be an apatheist.
One should note: god does not have to exist for there to be theists, nor must god not exist for there to be atheists.
Created:
-->
@Savant
I think good leaders are more replaceable than bad leaders, because it's easy for a single politician to do a lot of damage. Way more common for a politician to do a uniquely bad gimmick than to come up with some brilliant plan that no one else could have come up with. If the guy who was elected in a landslide is following the leading economic theories, then why can't their replacement do the same?
Because leadership matters, and good leadership is neither common nor to be taken for granted. But there are times, maybe, when people vote for the platform over the person— that could be a subject for a whole other thread.
Well, part of the rules would be banning that person from office too.
You really seem intent on thwarting the will of the electorate in what is supposed to be a democratic republic. To what end?
Created:
-->
@Savant
I think cults of personality are a bigger concern when the subject holds a political office. Sure, some people will have cuts of personality, but they won't hold office.
What if a leader who won election by a landslide— that you and everyone you know voted for, who is seen as doing good things for the country (or whatever jurisdiction as the case may be), and whose replacement is a hot mess— falls prey to this scheme because of some crazy yahoo?
Or, conversely, the person who goes to jail executing this scheme attains popularity and martyr status and gets elected to political office because of his sacrifice?
This would just cause more problems than it solves, and I don’t even see what the problem is that it purports to solve or how it would solve it.
Created:
-->
@Savant
I think it incentivizes politicians not to form cults of personality.
That’s a highly speculative reason to alter the highest law in the land. You are not worried about the cult of personality needed to support the person suggesting such an alteration to the Constitution ? Or assuming this scheme is codified, you are not concerned with the cult around a person sacrificing his own liberty to execute this provision?
This sounds like a self defeating solution in search of a problem. We already have a mechanism to eject a politician from office— elections.
Created:
-->
@Savant
You answered the “what?” but not the “why?” People like their liberty as protected in the Constitution. Why should a carve out around this protection be made?
Created:
-->
@Savant
I’m going to address this first point in isolation because it is a big one and to avoid it being lost in the rhetorical shuffle:
“It is unconstitutional, as it deprives a person of their right to self determination without due process.”
Constitution can be changed.
Yes, this can be changed, but why should it be changed? And what should it be changed to instead?
Created:
-->
@Savant
Interesting thought experiment, but no:
- It is unconstitutional, as it deprives a person of their right to self determination without due process.
- It is undemocratic, as it deprives the electorate of their duly elected official.
- It is immoral, as it does all of the above at the whim of a single person of questionable sanity.
- It is ineffective, as it assumes that government office is the only lever of power and influence a person might have.
- It is impractical, as the legal appeals process would come out in full force to counteract and delay such a move.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have a neighbor who is a former Army Ranger. When I first met him, he was wearing a t shirt that said “MOSTLY PEACEFUL.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@yachilviveyachali
Like Don Lemon?
Yes, like Don Lemon
I was thinking more like Jake Tapper and his tell-all book.
Yup. Also, in no particular order and not an exhaustive list:
Dana Bash
Chuck Todd
Norah O’Donnell
Margaret Brennan
Wolf Blitzer
Jim Acosta
Anderson Cooper
Yamiche Alcindor
and the dude who said “mostly peaceful.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I really thought this guy FishChaser was having a tough time. It turned out that he was fucking around.
That’s why I call him ShitRaiser.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I knew from the outset why you created this thread and exactly who would take your bait. No more; no less. You could own up to it, but that would be expecting too much.
Created:
This thread appears to exist solely to rankle a certain Catholic member. Mission accomplished! But that really isn’t saying much…
Created:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Capitalism is for those who want to make money. Making money is not putting food on the table; it is having more than you need to live, and employing people to make you more money. They get less and you get more. Capitalists want nice cars, nice houses, nice businesses, and plenty of money in the bank.
This is a rather caricaturish view of capitalism/capitalists.
A communist can be a capitalist too. Bernie Sanders has three homes. He said his book made him money, and he can therefore afford three properties.
I think you are mistaking inconsistency for versatility here.
Created:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
What do you mean “how?” He is a business owner with one employee (himself). That is what “self employed” means.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It is true that you have a lot of free time. I even said so initially. In contrast, I’m starting to feel as though I might have somewhat more pressing matters to attend to. Socks don’t organize themselves, you know!
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Back to post 20… or maybe post 7
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
But you admitted workers have more free time in a commune:"You attempt to rebrand self-employment as Communist because “the worker owns the means of production” and you work less hours than a capitalist would."
No, I was simply restating your own spurious claims.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Yeah, you say they exist in Capitalism now
Correct
and that they are better than the rest of the system now.
Incorrect, unless this somehow translates to “living in a commune in a capitalist nation is better than living in a communist nation.”
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Workers coops? Now thats more like my definition of Communism.
Right. See my reference to communes in my post 20. If this is your only issue with my post 20, then you are doing well.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
In theory, “society” owns the means of production under communism. In practice, the state owns the means on behalf of society.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Sure it does now. I have more free time there. Thats the point. Did you read first post in this thread? Wagey worker in USA has almost no free time and has average life expectancy less than 20 years.
No, your hours worked makes no substantive difference regarding which economic system you are working within. Yes, I read your OP, and you make as much sense as you usually do. You attempt to rebrand self-employment as Communist because “the worker owns the means of production” and you work less hours than a capitalist would. Less hours worked is an alleged result of Communism, which is quite distinct from being a defining trait of Communism that you make it out to be. In reality, self-employment is capitalistic because the owner of the means of production isn’t the state, and the private owner (ie you) keeps the profits, if any.
Even if self-employment were an example of Communism in action, it would be an example of how Communism can exist as a legal microcosm within capitalism. Under Communism, capitalism only exists as an illegal microcosm known as the black market.
Communism (ie “communes”) can legally exist within capitalism-> more liberty
Capitalism cannot legally exist within Communism-> less liberty
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Some self employed Capitalists work for 8 hours a day now. So I am still a lot different than them.
That makes no difference.
Since worker owns means of production, thats Communism.
This means that Communism can exist as a microcosm under a capitalist economic system. I agree.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I dont employ any workers other than myself.
That makes you a self-employed capitalist.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I do own means of production and I am not wagey either.
Ah, so that makes you a capitalist then. Ironic…
Created:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Being proud of one's race is a Black invention. Now, the Whites steal it in response to the Black silliness.
National pride predates racial pride. Chattel slavery significantly changed that by taking black people from their home countries. No longer affiliated with a particular nation or even tribe, they affiliated by race. And frankly, how proud can one be of a nation or tribe which might have sold them into slavery?
With that, black pride came to be a thing, and as you say, white pride followed with it, alas. I am much more on board with national pride, assuming one is actually residing in the nation one is showing pride in.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You appear to have a lot of free time. Are you living under Communism currently?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Funny vid. Zionists are the real Nazis.
Created:
-->
@Savant
This woman is just silly. Firstly, I don’t think there is such a saying in Germany— it is startlingly devoid of any meaningful context. Secondly, this author is addressing her book to and sitting down to dinner with and taking payment from women she calls racist. Does that make her a racist, too?
Created: