User Controls
Psychomanthis should move to the united states
-
2015-07-24 at 4:34 PM UTC
-
2015-07-24 at 5:02 PM UTCyes, come to our capitalistic paradise and see how the free market has transformed the US into a utopia where no one wants for anything and you can't turn around without innovation thrusting it's strong independent and individualistic dick up your ass and making sweet sweet non-aggressive mutually agreed love to you.
-
2015-07-24 at 5:03 PM UTCIsn't he Sophie on here? Wouldn't he want to just stay where he child loving is legal?
-
2015-07-24 at 5:58 PM UTCNo multi quote funtion so i'm going to do this.
@Arthur, I would if i didn't hate the US government with a vengeance.I mean if i could get a good paying job, i do have a degree afteral i'd come live in San Fran like Lan Lan and malice besides i know a girl in California that would be up for some californication nahmean?
@Lanny, No such thing as free market capitalism in the states it's all crony capitalism there which is like the exact opposite of my kind of capitalism which would be of the anarcho/austrian kind.
@Bradley, Age of consent in Holland is 16 just like a lot of states in America, you're thinking of Germany where 14 is legal(2 hour drive away, yay!) Or Japan where it's 13. Saudi Arabia doesn't have an age of consent but i should convert to Islam then and marry a young girl before i could bang her legally. -
2015-07-24 at 6:10 PM UTCThat video by the way if that guy talking about the what the DOJ wants is true is fucking justice, except for beastiality because animals can't consent never, while a 14yo who knows what sex is and knows the consequences perfectly can.
-
2015-07-25 at 2:08 AM UTCAge of Consent is also 14 in Alabama, I believe. I'd imagine, though, that once you hit the age of 25 or so, such a thing starts to seem unappealing.
-
2015-07-25 at 2:19 AM UTC
@Lanny, No such thing as free market capitalism in the states it's all crony capitalism there which is like the exact opposite of my kind of capitalism which would be of the anarcho/austrian kind.
See, this is funny because that argument usually happens in reverse, the left argues that states like the USSR or China at various phases weren't/aren't really socialistic and the right cries no true scottsman. And it's actually a good point, you have a functionally unfalsifiable model if every time it goes wrong you can play it off as a deformed worker state or crony capitalism. -
2015-07-25 at 2:20 AM UTC
That video by the way if that guy talking about the what the DOJ wants is true is fucking justice, except for beastiality because animals can't consent never, while a 14yo who knows what sex is and knows the consequences perfectly can.
They can't consent to being killed for food either, yet presumably you don't see anything wrong with that? -
2015-07-25 at 3 AM UTC
See, this is funny because that argument usually happens in reverse, the left argues that states like the USSR or China at various phases weren't/aren't really socialistic and the right cries no true scottsman. And it's actually a good point, you have a functionally unfalsifiable model if every time it goes wrong you can play it off as a deformed worker state or crony capitalism.
It is crony capitalism because the corporations and special interest groups pay big money to get the president of their choice elected and then the president can do the corporation favors in return like monopoly rights. Also china/ussr was socialist because every aspect of the economy was controlled there wasn't a free market or capitalism and we all know how the USSr turned out.
And you make a valid point about animals not being able to consent to be killed for food, but niggas gotta' eat nahmean blood? -
2015-07-25 at 5:56 AM UTC
It is crony capitalism because the corporations and special interest groups pay big money to get the president of their choice elected and then the president can do the corporation favors in return like monopoly rights.
See, the issue here is that you have to demonstrate that's actually the case. Consider, for example, the telecom industry in which the president has been generally in favor of neutrality laws which work against the interest of every major ISP in the USA. Clearly such companies like comcast are as big as you can get and yet they, for some reason, have completely failed to win political favor on this issue despite it costing them tremendous amounts of money. How can you explain that in your framework of "crony capitalism"?Also china/ussr was socialist because every aspect of the economy was controlled there wasn't a free market or capitalism and we all know how the USSr turned out.
That's clearly not true in the case of China and for the USSR, there's a lot more that goes into being a socialism than the state having control of the means of produciton. Consider that the state has control of means of production in despotisms and classical monarchies as well, yet neither of these forms of government are socialistic.And you make a valid point about animals not being able to consent to be killed for food, but niggas gotta' eat nahmean blood?
Doesn't a nigga gotta fuck too? We can live perfectly well without consuming meat, I've learned this first hand recently. It's somewhat more challenging to live without consuming any product that requires farming of animal products (veganism), but at very least it's obvious that meat is produced without the consent of animals. Would I be justified in violating such libertarian principles as non-aggression or property rights against other humans if it was what was required for me to eat? -
2015-07-25 at 6:19 AM UTC
We can live perfectly well without consuming meat, I've learned this first hand recently. It's somewhat more challenging to live without consuming any product that requires farming of animal products (veganism), but at very least it's obvious that meat is produced without the consent of animals. Would I be justified in violating such libertarian principles as non-aggression or property rights against other humans if it was what was required for me to eat?
Define 'consent' in the context of obtaining nutrition. Is a vine morally wrong for strangling a sapling to death, because no 'consent' was given?
All higher life needs to feed on living, or once-living things. Animal or plant, what is the difference, really? . -
2015-07-25 at 6:40 AM UTC
Define 'consent' in the context of obtaining nutrition. Is a vine morally wrong for strangling a sapling to death, because no 'consent' was given?
I reject "consent" as a primary qualification for morality to start with. I think we, for example, would be fully within our rights to stop a murder from killing people against his consent. The relevant question is whether or not an action maximizes the well being of moral agents. Animals, and particularly mammals, seem to have intellectual abilities not to far from our own, they seem to the best of our knowledge to be able to experience happiness and suffering. I don't believe there are any non-human animals that have equal moral agency as ourselves, but I do think that minimally certain mammals are capable of suffering (and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise). So in the case of vines strangling other plants to death, the act is morally neutral since there doesn't seem to be significant evidence that plants can experience pleasure or suffering in a way that's meaningful analogous to our own experience.
But even if you did view consent of affected parties as a requirement for moral action, you can't reconcile a rejection of beastiality and an acceptance of meat eating. I suspect the predominant view is that animals simply are not moral agents since they don't possess rationality (one among many reasons deontology is a crock), and if a person holding such a view rejects beastiality it would have to be on the grounds of divine prohibition or something equally silly. "But it's natural" is a prime example of the naturalistic fallacy and "you've got to eat to survive" is both a false dichotomy (you can eat without consuming animals) and a non-sequitur ("I need to do X to survive" does not imply X is good in any way shape or form. You could be forced, at gun point, to murder 20 children. Doing that would be necessary to survival but it certainly wouldn't be a moral positive).All higher life needs to feed on living, or once-living things. Animal or plant, what is the difference, really? .
So again, animal vs. plant, the difference is capacity to suffer (on my view). But no matter how you look at it, beastiality and eating meat come as a package unless you invoke divine law or something similarly stupid. -
2015-07-25 at 8:03 AM UTCVegetarianism refuted:
-
2015-07-25 at 2:04 PM UTC
See, the issue here is that you have to demonstrate that's actually the case. Consider, for example, the telecom industry in which the president has been generally in favor of neutrality laws which work against the interest of every major ISP in the USA. Clearly such companies like comcast are as big as you can get and yet they, for some reason, have completely failed to win political favor on this issue despite it costing them tremendous amounts of money. How can you explain that in your framework of "crony capitalism"?
Bank bail-outs. Point demonstrated.That's clearly not true in the case of China and for the USSR, there's a lot more that goes into being a socialism than the state having control of the means of produciton. Consider that the state has control of means of production in despotisms and classical monarchies as well, yet neither of these forms of government are socialistic.
China not so much these days but it was in the USSR, remember how Stalin thought it would be a great idea to impose collectivization, now that was awesome wasn't it. Millions of people died of famine or had to stand in lines for hours upon hours to get a stale loaf of bread.Doesn't a nigga gotta fuck too? We can live perfectly well without consuming meat, I've learned this first hand recently. It's somewhat more challenging to live without consuming any product that requires farming of animal products (veganism), but at very least it's obvious that meat is produced without the consent of animals. Would I be justified in violating such libertarian principles as non-aggression or property rights against other humans if it was what was required for me to eat?
Nope a nigga doesn't gotta fuck to survive. Meh maybe i'm a hypocrite, i am down with the LGBT lifestyle and i better be because my sexual preference is not quite normal myself but fucking animals is just weird breh. Also if you're starving you still can't break the NAP, and still gotta' respect property rights. If a nigga is starving then a nigga needs to find a job, if the job ain't there, become an entrepeneur. -
2015-07-25 at 4:44 PM UTCI do readily agree that animals cognition and emotions are quite like ours.
so, why is it ok for a pack of wolves to take down and eat a caribou, but it is somehow reprehensible if I eat the flesh of a dead chicken, tenderized and coated in flour, egg, and bread crumbs and fried for four minutes on each side? -
2015-07-25 at 8:55 PM UTC
Bank bail-outs. Point demonstrated.
Point not demonstrated. We can imagine reasons (such as reasons actually given) for the bank bailouts without resorting to cronyism yet your model of the US as a crony capitalism has a hard time explaining why telecom, despite it's tremendous resources, has failed to evade legislation that harms its interests.China not so much these days but it was in the USSR, remember how Stalin thought it would be a great idea to impose collectivization, now that was awesome wasn't it. Millions of people died of famine or had to stand in lines for hours upon hours to get a stale loaf of bread.
What exactly are you basing that claim on?I do readily agree that animals cognition and emotions are quite like ours.
so, why is it ok for a pack of wolves to take down and eat a caribou, but it is somehow reprehensible if I eat the flesh of a dead chicken, tenderized and coated in flour, egg, and bread crumbs and fried for four minutes on each side?
Because there's a difference between being a moral agent (having moral responsibilities) and being morally considerable (having some rights, being the subject of moral agents' duties). Adult humans are both agents and morally considerable but animals are only considerable. By analogy, if an infant acts or fails to act in a way that causes someone harm it wouldn't make sense to blame it, it couldn't have done otherwise and didn't understand the meaning of its actions, yet we still would consider it immoral to harm infants, despite them not having the same responsibilities as us. Wolves don't seem to have the mental capacity to understand right from wrong, it would make no sense to hold them to a moral standard, but that doesn't mean we don't have some obligation not to harm then unduly. -
2015-07-26 at 3:06 AM UTC
Point not demonstrated. We can imagine reasons (such as reasons actually given) for the bank bailouts without resorting to cronyism yet your model of the US as a crony capitalism has a hard time explaining why telecom, despite it's tremendous resources, has failed to evade legislation that harms its interests.
Lanny, it's not as if they can get everything they want, they don't have complete control over the government. You should also think more deeply about (psychological) strategy, a sustainable parasitic relationship vs. getting everything they can as fast as they can. Let's assume everything is done in their favor, massively reducing the utility consumers receive, and, realistically, the US still has a fair amount of democracy and hasn't managed to become a full blown authoritarian fascist police state. What would occur? Wouldn't the backlash be so massive that it would trigger change removing them from a position of power? Be sure to take into account voter apathy, a sort of threshold effect before which people are generally unaware (limits of knowledge, things you can read about in your free time, be aware of and have a good understanding of, devote your time to) and don't care enough to take serious action, even something as simple as voting, which we do clearly see and you would have to be delusional to deny, unless you're a democratic/statist fundamentalist/utopian and refuse to accept that democratic and statist systems can fail just as markets can, the effects of which are far far worse IMO. -
2015-07-26 at 6:32 AM UTCSo when we see government favors happening it's evidence of cronyism and when we don't see government favors happening it's... still evidence for cronyism because it's just a measured effort to appease the populace? Sounds like an unfalsifiable hypothesis to me. What exactly would you consider evidence against the crony capitalism hypothesis?
-
2015-07-26 at 7:36 AM UTCAre you saying we don't have massive cronyism? No, you wouldn't be that foolish. You seem to have this quasi-autistic thinking style that tends to be too narrow and inflexible. Of course our current system isn't 100% cronyism, clearly countries/states vary in their levels of corruption.
-
2015-07-26 at 8:29 AM UTC
Are you saying we don't have massive cronyism? No, you wouldn't be that foolish. You seem to have this quasi-autistic thinking style that tends to be too narrow and inflexible. Of course our current system isn't 100% cronyism, clearly countries/states vary in their levels of corruption.
My point still stands though, if you want to deny the US as being representative of the outcomes of capitalism then you need to demonstrate that it's not a capitalism to a sufficient degree to excuse capitalism-as-concept. You think the US is non-representative of capitalistic systems so what would be a falsification condition for that? Put differently what evidence would you need to see in order to be convinced that systems like the US are representative of austrian school economics?
