Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

I dunno why you gave up on changing people's opinions apk. While you haven't ever changed mine, you've sometimes shown me sides of my opinions that i hadn't adequately explored, and that's pretty decent by itself. Same goes for benj.

I worded that poorly last night. I'm not against debating and tryin to change peoples minds but I really used to get frustrated when people dug in. I'm just more aware how people come to change their mind. Form reading about physiology to personal experience.

I just better understand that the person has to be earnestly interested in examining their views. I'm not just gonna lay the truth smack-down and have them see the light. So I've toned down responding to every posts when its gets into the weeds and leads no where. Nothings going to change there, the person is set in their ideas.

I don't think debates are bad and I try to change peoples minds all the time (especially in my daily life and in person where its much easier to have a back and forth and empathize with the persons concerns which is the best way to change minds) but I'm not evangelical in the same way I probably used to be.

I used to get into hour long back an fourths that went no where. That's what I ment I stopped. If the conversation is going to be useful ill engage, if not? I'll walk away, I'm not gonna change that persons mind.

That' why I do engage in here a lot more than OT. I know there is some good faith and attempt to engage.

So what has changed your minds about things politically, if anything ever has?

I'd say the "supply side jesus" comics were huge in moving me from a Ron Paul follower to solid progressive, and I honestly wouldn't be vegan today if not for vegans constantly winning internet arguments with logic and facts.

I do wonder if as I move into my 30s and 40s if I'll be so informed about so many arguments and facts that it'd take an impossible amount of new arguments and facts to topple my current beliefs no matter how correct those beliefs are, but there's still probably a 17 year old out there still undecided on such things, reading these internet arguments, and forming opinions off the ones that make the most sense.

I think people can have their mind changed and I'm not against doing that but its through empathy that it happens. Message boards and logic aren't really conducive to that as much.

And I think while logic and facts might be good for somepeople its not really true for most. I'm not against engaging but like I said I'll back out when I sense its going to be a boring fact off.

 

[thepotatoman]

And since you're sooooo interested in what my policy platform would be, I will offer it:
1. 95% flat tax on all incomes over $1 million, 70% flat tax on all incomes between $1 million and the median income, 45% flat tax on all incomes between the median and 4x the poverty line.
2. Outlaw private practice, insurance, medical care, etc. Medicare for All with all drug companies, hospitals, doctors, state-owned and state paid for. Cap costs at 10% of GDP or lower.
3. A Canadian like MST and GST of 25%.
4. 100% death tax, 2% yearly savings/wealth tax, 110% expat tax
5. Gradual replacement of all power plants with nuclear
6. Elimination on tax cap on social security, increase to 25% tax, means test Social Security
7. Universal income replacing all welfare programs of 3x the poverty line.
8. Elimination of minimum wage, mandatory unionization within all industries, 25% of all public stock to be held by the government, 26% by the unions, all industries prices set within competitive range by joint government-union-company boards
9. No corporate tax on public companies, 60% tax on revenue for private companies
10. Government ownership of all telecommunications with free access and no caps
11. All school funding at federal level, given to schools by inverse of graduation rates
12. Formation of all public utility companies into national ones instead of local, de-privatization of postal service and assumption of all transportation/delivery companies under their purview, increase airport, gas and other transport fees and taxes by % of increased usage each year
13. Eliminate all restrictions on freedom of press/assembly/speech
14. Ignore the Supreme Court lol jk
15. $1 billion Metroid fund established.
16. Replace the Senate with PR elected, 1% threshold (so 1% = 1 seat, 100 seats, easy peasy), double the size of the House.
17. Ban the President from delivering the State of the Union in person
18. Ban Lindsey Graham and Peter King from the country
19. Issue letters of marque and reprisal for Lindsey Graham and Peter King
20. Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
21. Fifty-four forty or fight!

EDIT: Enact the Ecotic Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan

But things like your 95% flat tax on all incomes over $1 million go completely against the Huemer video you showed me. According to him, the only thing the government should do is things "everyone" agrees with, like using force to stop murder and theft, but using force to straight up redistribute wealth seems to be completely against Huemer's entire argument.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But things like your 95% flat tax on all incomes over $1 million go completely against the Huemer video you showed me. According to him, the only thing the government should do is things "everyone" agrees with, like using force to stop murder and theft, but using force to straight up redistribute wealth seems to be completely against Huemer's entire argument.

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm

 

[Aaron Strife]

more info on that Atwater news from politico. Well, maybe the Florida Democrats might win a statewide race after 20 years or lose again like always.

Bill Nelson is good at winning races in Florida.

 

[Armoured Priest]

I want to hear more about Benji's item 15.

Do you feel that Parasite X is set to become a growing issue, perhaps used as a weapon by some terrorist group such as ISIS, or perhaps the Zebesians, or perhaps even VENOM?

 

[NeoXChaos]

Bill Nelson is good at winning races in Florida.

Our good friend Nelson is the proven exception.

 

[benjipwns]

But things like your 95% flat tax on all incomes over $1 million go completely against the Huemer video you showed me. According to him, the only thing the government should do is things "everyone" agrees with, like using force to stop murder and theft, but using force to straight up redistribute wealth seems to be completely against Huemer's entire argument.

Ideally, but we're long past that. So re-implementing standard New Deal and Progressive Era policies with some 1940s/1950s UK and new ideas mixed in is the only way to wipe out the debt, strangle medical spending and accumulate wealth upward so it can trickle down via political process. There's no other way to do it and allowing a debt collapse will hurt modern generations to the benefit of later while full on descent into central planning will be a totalitarian disaster as always.

I want to hear more about Benji's item 15.

Do you feel that Parasite X is set to become a growing issue, perhaps used as a weapon by some terrorist group such as ISIS, or perhaps the Zebesians, or perhaps even VENOM?

No, I just want more Metroid games.

No Other Ms though. All of that can go on the boat with Graham and King.

Spoiler

But yes, I am concerned about unchecked Phazon proliferation.

 

[Chichikov]

I was you using the colloquial "you" not you you.

What am I doing other than "using the system to try and achieve better results"? I engage in the exchange of ideas with you and others, there's no higher use possible.

I already said what the path is and why it won't happen in my last post. People still need their proxy violence through corporations mainly for the same reason they always have, they just don't like certain people and want to punish them. And they assume they know how to decide for everyone better than everyone knows how to decide for themselves. So more power to the top for more violence to gain more power to the top. It's why the concentration of power in a central entity like a dictatorship of the proletariat never gives way to the withering of the state altogether, why would centralized power democratize and decentralize itself?

The self-fulfilling prophecy of their critique of nature. Might makes right, so we must have the most might and we'll be right. It'll work this time, these are topper top men. Perfect knowledge is possible if we suppress enough information. And so on and so on and so on...

/zizek

I have no idea what you're saying anymore.

p.s.
Metroid is trash, I've only played Metroid Prime and that game was shit.
Benji - wrong about healthcare, wrong about videogames, wrong for America.

 

[Teggy]

No, I just want more Metroid games.

No Other Ms though. All of that can go on the boat with Graham and King.

Can I negotiate a change from Peter to Steve?

Spoiler

Also, I am playing Other M right now and it's kind of fun.

 

[thepotatoman]

p.s.
Metroid is trash, I've only played Metroid Prime and that game was shit.
Benji - wrong about healthcare, wrong about videogames, wrong for America.

Spoiler

Also, I am playing Other M right now and it's kind of fun.

God, no wonder Poligaf got called the worst place on Neogaf. Turns out Benji is the only sane one here.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I have no idea what you're saying anymore.

p.s.
Metroid is trash, I've only played Metroid Prime and that game was shit.
Benji - wrong about healthcare, wrong about videogames, wrong for America.

this is bannable material right here. Were are the mods?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a recent meeting of the security cabinet that if a comprehensive nuclear agreement between Iran and the six world powers is indeed signed by the June 30 deadline, the greatest concern is that Tehran will fully implement it without violations, two senior Israeli officials said.

According to the two senior officials, Netanyahu said during the meeting that he feared that the “Iranians will keep to every letter in the agreement if indeed one is signed at the end of June.”

One official said: “Netanyahu said at the meeting that it would be impossible to catch the Iranians cheating simply because they will not break the agreement.”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.651350

its blatent the opposition isn't to the deal and preventing Iran from getting a bomb its from friendlier relationships and the US not putting their thumb on the scales of power in the middle east.

 

[Ecotic]

And since you're sooooo interested in what my policy platform would be, I will offer it:
1. 95% flat tax on all incomes over $1 million, 70% flat tax on all incomes between $1 million and the median income, 45% flat tax on all incomes between the median and 4x the poverty line.
2. Outlaw private practice, insurance, medical care, etc. Medicare for All with all drug companies, hospitals, doctors, state-owned and state paid for. Cap costs at 10% of GDP or lower.
3. A Canadian like MST and GST of 25%.
4. 100% death tax, 2% yearly savings/wealth tax, 110% expat tax
5. Gradual replacement of all power plants with nuclear
6. Elimination on tax cap on social security, increase to 25% tax, means test Social Security
7. Universal income replacing all welfare programs of 3x the poverty line.
8. Elimination of minimum wage, mandatory unionization within all industries, 25% of all public stock to be held by the government, 26% by the unions, all industries prices set within competitive range by joint government-union-company boards
9. No corporate tax on public companies, 60% tax on revenue for private companies
10. Government ownership of all telecommunications with free access and no caps
11. All school funding at federal level, given to schools by inverse of graduation rates
12. Formation of all public utility companies into national ones instead of local, de-privatization of postal service and assumption of all transportation/delivery companies under their purview, increase airport, gas and other transport fees and taxes by % of increased usage each year
13. Eliminate all restrictions on freedom of press/assembly/speech
14. Ignore the Supreme Court lol jk
15. $1 billion Metroid fund established.
16. Replace the Senate with PR elected, 1% threshold (so 1% = 1 seat, 100 seats, easy peasy), double the size of the House.
17. Ban the President from delivering the State of the Union in person
18. Ban Lindsey Graham and Peter King from the country
19. Issue letters of marque and reprisal for Lindsey Graham and Peter King
20. Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
21. Fifty-four forty or fight!

EDIT: Enact the Ecotic Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan

Well I don't agree with his Bart killing policy, but I do agree with his Selma killing policy!

 

[Chichikov]

this is bannable material right here. Were are the mods?

Typical authoritarian scum, the moment your world view is challenged you bring the coercive threat of violence to force conformity.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.651350

its blatent the opposition isn't to the deal and preventing Iran from getting a bomb its from friendlier relationships and the US not putting their thumb on the scales of power in the middle east.

Yeah, same shit as before the Iraq war, trying to get the US to take out a regional power.

 

[B-Dubs]

I have no idea what you're saying anymore.

p.s.
Metroid is trash, I've only played Metroid Prime and that game was shit.
Benji - wrong about healthcare, wrong about videogames, wrong for America.

Someone call a mod, Chichikov is asking to be banned.

 

[Abinash117]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/u...nnounce-2016-run-for-president-on-sunday.html

But even as Mrs. Clinton attempts to set aside her celebrity and offer herself as a fighter for ordinary voters, her finance team and the outside groups supporting her candidacy have started collecting checks in what is expected to be a $2.5 billion effort, dwarfing the vast majority of her would-be rivals in both parties.

Is that like way more than anyone ever had for a campaign?

 

[HylianTom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/u...nnounce-2016-run-for-president-on-sunday.html



Is that like way more than anyone ever had for a campaign?

According to Google (so take this for what it's worth), the cumulative cost of both presidential campaigns was over $2 billion. $2.5 billion? Not too shabby, although that'll be in relation to what the GOP nominee is able to do, I guess.

Here's hoping she devotes a good chunk of that to GOTV efforts. Since Dems live in higher-density areas, they typically get more bang-for-their-buck on turnout efforts.

And I still think a chunk of that money would be well-spent on a last-minute infomercial.

(And Metroid Prime was incredible! Especially if you got the Space Jump Boots in the first 5 minutes.)

 

[RustyNails]

I can already tell; Hillary is gonna bomb the "youth outreach" stuff, like Obama's Between Two Ferns and that other thing he did this year for signing up for healthcare. That's an issue. I see a disconnect between her and the young people whereas Obama was someone many young people knew could relate to them. At least I did.

 

[B-Dubs]

I can already tell; Hillary is gonna bomb the "youth outreach" stuff, like Obama's Between Two Ferns and that other thing he did this year for signing up for healthcare. That's an issue. I see a disconnect between her and the young people whereas Obama was someone many young people knew could relate to them. At least I did.

She's too old and not cool enough to do that stuff. Biden could do it, Bill could do it, Hilary can't. They can find another way to do it though, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I feel so horrible using that metaphor...

 

[The Technomancer]

I think people can have their mind changed and I'm not against doing that but its through empathy that it happens. Message boards and logic aren't really conducive to that as much.

And I think while logic and facts might be good for somepeople its not really true for most. I'm not against engaging but like I said I'll back out when I sense its going to be a boring fact off.

Honestly? Statistics worked for me. I used to hold some, hm, not pleasent views on things like affirmative action and the trends of poverty in various groups and even rape. And then some people showed me the actual stats and I just wasn't able to deny that I was wrong

 

[Trouble]

I can already tell; Hillary is gonna bomb the "youth outreach" stuff, like Obama's Between Two Ferns and that other thing he did this year for signing up for healthcare. That's an issue. I see a disconnect between her and the young people whereas Obama was someone many young people knew could relate to them. At least I did.

Doesn't really matter, though. The polling shows she absolutely wrecks any of the potential GOP candidates among young people.

From our very own benjitrolls:

18-29:
60 Hillary - 29 Rubio
57 Hillary - 30 Walker
63 Hillary - 27 Perry
63 Hillary - 28 Bush
67 Hillary - 27 Paul
68 Hillary - 27 Cruz

 

[B-Dubs]

Honestly? Statistics worked for me. I used to hold some, hm, not pleasent views on things like affirmative action and the trends of poverty in various groups and even rape. And then some people showed me the actual stats and I just wasn't able to deny that I was wrong

Unfortunately very few people ever have their minds changed by that approach, more often than not it just entrenches their views.

 

[The Technomancer]

Re: voluntarism and the state. I've tried to articulate my views on this before, but the simple way I perceive it is that access to resources is just as coercive as a gun to your head. There isn't infinite arable land and there isn't infinite medicine and so the ability of some groups to organize and take control of access to those resources makes fully voluntary interaction impossible, or at least unstable. The reduction of the state in the name of reduction of violence always seems to either ignore or be particularly unconcerned with the rise of other coercive dynamics because they aren't "real violence", and having to buy your medicine from one of a handful of groups that control all medicine is, somehow, voluntary interaction

Look, honestly? If I'm going to go really radically out there, I'm going to say that my pie in the sky system starts with the significant re-evaluation of the idea of property ownership. Scarcity plus private ownership means every person who does not inherit the resources to sustain their life is born into coercive circumstance. I am not free to not sell my labor.

 

[Chichikov]

Someone call a mod, Chichikov is asking to be banned.

Never before in all of PoliGAF's history have so many forces been so united against one poster as they stand today. You are unanimous in your hate for me - and I welcome your hatred.

Re: voluntarism and the state. I've tried to articulate my views on this before, but the simple way I perceive it is that access to resources is just as coercive as a gun to your head. There isn't infinite arable land and there isn't infinite medicine and so the ability of some groups to organize and take control of access to those resources makes fully voluntary interaction impossible, or at least unstable. Or, to put it another way, its usually said that one of the goals of eliminating the state is the elimination of sanctioned violence. But there's no way to eliminate resource coercion: scarcity is a thing and will remain a thing. The reduction of the state in the name of reduction of violence always seems to either ignore or be particularly unconcerned with the rise of other coercive dynamics because they aren't "real violence", and having to buy your medicine from one of a handful of groups that control all medicine is, somehow, voluntary interaction

Look, honestly? If I'm going to go really radically out there, I'm going to say that my pie in the sky system starts with the re-evaluation of the idea of property ownership. Scarcity plus private ownership means every person is born into coercive circumstance. I am not free to not sell my labor.

One of the many reasons why I don't think we'll be able to get to a free associative society before we have superabundance.
That doesn't mean that we can't recognize the inherent philosophical flaws of our modern nation states, especially since recognizing them can allow us to lessen their negative effects.

 

[The Technomancer]

One of the many reasons why I don't think we'll be able to get to a free associative society before we have superabundance.
That doesn't mean that we can't recognize the inherent philosophical flaws of our modern nation states, especially since recognizing them can allow us to lessen their negative effects.

Sure. And I agree with what you said on the last page about the actual repercussions of most proposals to reduce the state in the name of liberty these days.

Where I'm curious though is where you fall on the rationale. If I'm to somehow be convinced of a system of voluntary interaction that somehow still preserves private property it will be because I'm convinced that the net result will be a more optimal standard of quality of life. Benji is, well, the opposite, its a question of morality and if the first principles (no interactions dictated by violence) are moral, then the results, whatever they are, must be moral as well. What do you find yourself thinking these days?

 

[Chichikov]

Sure. And I agree with what you said on the last page about the actual repercussions of most proposals to reduce the state in the name of liberty these days.

Where I'm curious though is where you fall on the rationale. If I'm to somehow be convinced of a system of voluntary interaction that somehow still preserves private property it will be because I'm convinced that the net result will be a more optimal standard of quality of life. Benji is, well, the opposite, its a question of morality and if the first principles (no interactions dictated by violence) are moral, then the results, whatever they are, must be moral as well. What do you find yourself thinking these days?

I always take the practical approach to such things.
Let me give you an example - I personally believe its your right to endanger your own life, I love to snowboard, I enjoy drugs, I drink too much and once every 4 years I pick up smoking for a month during the world cup, all those things are not good to me, but as long as I don't hurt anyone, the state should get the fuck out of my way and let me be the safety third dumbass that I am.
Now by that logic I should be against seatbelt laws, and yet I'm not.
Seatbelt laws saves lives, a whole lot of them, and all you have to give up is the freedom of not having to put a seatbelt on, which I consider to be a small an unimportant one.

And yeah, I'm totally aware that this inconsistent with my general belief that people should be allowed to risk their lives as they please, but to me it only shows once again that one sentence philosophical proclamations can't really capture the complexity of life and human society, it would be awesome if it could, but it just doesn't.

And while we're at it, I don't really accept the slippery slope argument here, I just try to make the right decision at every junction.

With all that being said, I do believe that the fact that you don't get to choose where you're born and the rules of society are forced upon you is a real practical problem, maybe not a hugely pressing one for most people born in the US, but there are other countries out there.

 

[KingK]

p.s.
Metroid is trash, I've only played Metroid Prime and that game was shit.
Benji - wrong about healthcare, wrong about videogames, wrong for America.

Fuck, you used to be one of my favorite poliGAF posters. Now you're making me side with Benji.

 

[Lucky Forward]

She's too old and not cool enough to do that stuff. Biden could do it, Bill could do it, Hilary can't. They can find another way to do it though, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I feel so horrible using that metaphor...

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-03-05/news/mn-8038_1_neil-reagan

When told by a journalist that Neil Reagan said he thought the President had arranged the diversion [of Iran-Contra funds] because, his brother believes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat," Reagan shot back: "I'll skin him."

 

[benjipwns]

Metroid Prime is not the Citizen Kane of its era, it's better. And Echoes's bosses are greater than any political party bosses. And Corruption is pretty cool.

Super not getting a GBA release to go with Fusion and Zero Mission was a capital crime quite frankly. Perhaps the only legitimate capital crime.

Can I negotiate a change from Peter to Steve?

NO. Peter continues to inveigh against "terrorist supporters" who oppose murdering everyone Islamic despite his IRA past.

Re: voluntarism and the state. I've tried to articulate my views on this before, but the simple way I perceive it is that access to resources is just as coercive as a gun to your head. There isn't infinite arable land and there isn't infinite medicine and so the ability of some groups to organize and take control of access to those resources makes fully voluntary interaction impossible, or at least unstable. The reduction of the state in the name of reduction of violence always seems to either ignore or be particularly unconcerned with the rise of other coercive dynamics because they aren't "real violence", and having to buy your medicine from one of a handful of groups that control all medicine is, somehow, voluntary interaction

Look, honestly? If I'm going to go really radically out there, I'm going to say that my pie in the sky system starts with the significant re-evaluation of the idea of property ownership. Scarcity plus private ownership means every person who does not inherit the resources to sustain their life is born into coercive circumstance. I am not free to not sell my labor.

Scarcity, like the rest of nature, is not coercive because (except crows and cats) it doesn't have agency.

You have only two options either homesteading is a legitimate method of gaining property rights or it's not and you get no rights at all. I have yet to find any explanation, even by my allies such as Bakunin, how a society without self-ownership rights can have any rights at all. I suppose one alternative is a massively impoverished society but those don't last very long which makes it more of a moot point.

Your medicine example presupposes a right to purchase medicine let alone to purchase it from anyone you want on any terms you want. You don't, and you can't. Because the only way to come about this right is to impose a duty on someone else to invent, manufacture and then sell you medicine on your terms.

Never is this to make an argument that any existing state of nature has come to absolutely coercion-free as that's lunancy, the point is that if you spend all your time trying to unwind the past instead of just doing right going forward you'll never be doing the latter.

If I'm to somehow be convinced of a system of voluntary interaction that somehow still preserves private property it will be because I'm convinced that the net result will be a more optimal standard of quality of life. Benji is, well, the opposite, its a question of morality and if the first principles (no interactions dictated by violence) are moral, then the results, whatever they are, must be moral as well. What do you find yourself thinking these days?

You seem to be attempting to not accept that underlying politics are merely moral questions and instead divine that a political "truth" can be found through an empirical process that involves deploying violence either in elite interest or randomly. And then this "truth" just washes across society with magic improving it. Since Plato might have been joking, we'll give Hobbes another fallacy to hold as his own.

This is how you get into the trap of believing the abhorrent nonsense that my view is that ANY "results must be moral" simply because you're working backwards from your ideal intentions and then proscribing the intentions forward as moral. It's nothing to be ashamed of, Marx is the most famous example of confusing this process for science.

Your moral views are all that you can control, when you deny these on the alter of the possibility of "more optimal standards, I hope" you aren't gaining anything. Well, faith, I suppose.

Faith + 1.

 

[BertramCooper]

So when is the announcement coming?

Her website has already changed slightly.

What used to be HillaryClinton.com is now HillaryClintonOffice.com.

 

[The Technomancer]

Scarcity, like the rest of nature, is not coercive because (except crows and cats) it doesn't have agency.

You have only two options either homesteading is a legitimate method of gaining property rights or it's not and you get no rights at all. I have yet to find any explanation, even by my allies such as Bakunin, how a society without self-ownership rights can have any rights at all. I suppose one alternative is a massively impoverished society but those don't last very long which makes it more of a moot point.

Homesteading is a completely awful basis for a moral system of ownership though, because its essentially completely random in its distribution, and a moral system built on randomness is just as arbitrary as no moral system at all.

You seem to be attempting to not accept that underlying politics are merely moral questions and instead divine that a political "truth" can be found through an empirical process that involves deploying violence either in elite interest or randomly. And then this "truth" just washes across society with magic improving it. Since Plato might have been joking, we'll give Hobbes another fallacy to hold as his own.

This is how you get into the trap of believing the abhorrent nonsense that my view is that ANY "results must be moral" simply because you're working backwards from your ideal intentions and then proscribing the intentions forward as moral. It's nothing to be ashamed of, Marx is the most famous example of confusing this process for science.

Your moral views are all that you can control, when you deny these on the alter of the possibility of "more optimal standards, I hope" you aren't gaining anything. Well, faith, I suppose.

And you seem to believe that there is some axiomatic nature to the behaviors you believe are moral or immoral based on...I'm not entirely sure what, exactly. If they're based on your own personal experience you're still basing your beliefs on experienced consequences. As a rule I tend to mistrust philosophical and moral axioms, they're always derived by people who are convinced of the universality, objectivity, or both of their own experience.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So when is the announcement coming?

Her website has already changed slightly.

What used to be HillaryClinton.com is now HillaryClintonOffice.com.

Idk but its funny watching the media go insane

https://twitter.com/hunterw/status/587286153591705601

 

[benjipwns]

Homesteading is a completely awful basis for a moral system of ownership though, because its essentially completely random in its distribution, and a moral system built on randomness is just as arbitrary as no moral system at all.

What other method is there to use without giving all property to one entity to distribute out by its whims?

And you seem to believe that there is some axiomatic nature to the behaviors you believe are moral or immoral based on...I'm not entirely sure what, exactly.

Violence is wrong. The non-aggression principle. As Matt Kibbe unfortunately titled his book: Don't hurt others and take their stuff.

Not sure why that is some kind of controversial view. Or why advocating for violence is more moral because you claim it's for the victim's good.

 

[benjipwns]

As a rule I tend to mistrust philosophical and moral axioms, they're always derived by people who are convinced of the universality, objectivity, or both of their own experience.

Will keep this one for the next time I need to free the Enterprise from some robot's grasp.

EDIT: sorry for dp, on phone and can't seem to get highlight to work right since last update

 

[The Technomancer]

Violence is wrong. The non-aggression principle. As Matt Kibbe unfortunately titled his book: Don't hurt others and take their stuff.

Not sure why that is some kind of controversial view. Or why advocating for violence is more moral because you claim it's for the victim's good.

Violence is wrong...unless they're threatening you. Wait, what if they have a gun to my wife's head?

Okay violence is wrong...unless they're threatening you or someone you care about. Wait, what if they're about to steal my TV?

Okay violence is wrong...unless they're threatening to take something I own, some people will argue. Wait, what if they're imposing on my religious expression?

Okay violence is wrong...unless they're supressing your deeply held beliefs, some people will argue. Wait, what if one man has locked up all of the food in the town?

Okay violence is wrong...unless you're using it to break down the monopoly, some will argue

So many ways people can define "aggression".

 

[NYCmetsfan]

roma thread in OT. lol

 

[ivysaur12]

roma thread in OT. lol

All Roma threads are like that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

All Roma threads are like that.

I know its just funny and sad. Its like people don't get how racism works and how many prejudices they have

 

[Poodlestrike]

roma thread in OT. lol

I swear, any mention of Roma and some members of EuroGaf just lose their goddamn minds.

 

[ivysaur12]

The Associated Press ‏@AP
BREAKING: Hillary Rodham Clinton enters White House race; Democrat seeks to be first female president.

She's running?

 

[Dominican Power]

I'm so shocked!!!!

 

[The Technomancer]

shocking news

 

[benjipwns]

She's running?

Can we please not post farcical no chance bullshit in this thread?

Violence is wrong...unless they're threatening you. Wait, what if they have a gun to my wife's head?

Okay violence is wrong...unless they're threatening you or someone you care about. Wait, what if they're about to steal my TV?

Okay violence is wrong...unless they're threatening to take something I own, some people will argue. Wait, what if they're imposing on my religious expression?

Okay violence is wrong...unless they're supressing your deeply held beliefs, some people will argue. Wait, what if one man has locked up all of the food in the town?

Okay violence is wrong...unless you're using it to break down the monopoly, some will argue

So many ways people can define "aggression".

Except for the food one (need more details) every single one of these seems like a clear cut act of aggression by one party against another.

I don't support revolution for the same reason I have borderline absurd self-defense standards before certain levels of defensive violence can be deployed. I don't agree with libertarians or AnCaps who think it justified to deliberately kill in response to trespassing for example.

EDIT: To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, the world may be full of injustice, but let me not add to it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Metroid Prime is not the Citizen Kane of its era, it's better. And Echoes's bosses are greater than any political party bosses. And Corruption is pretty cool.

Super not getting a GBA release to go with Fusion and Zero Mission was a capital crime quite frankly. Perhaps the only legitimate capital crime.

Reggie needs to pay for super not getting a GBA release.

I wanted to like echos and think the game is great but some of the navigation ans world design was a bit obtuse. Flawed but still great game. Prime is perfect though. Best atmosphere in any game ever. It also will always feel 'modern'. Its quite the accomplishment. I got a GameCube for Zelda but metroid better justified it. That ans resident evil 4.

 

[benjipwns]

Echoes is a spoke and wheel. Except the fucking dark Aether which then makes you dimension hop stupidly.

Mario and half of Zelda were disapointments. Everyone thought Prime was going to be a disaster...and RE4 too after their long developments and genre hops.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I always take the practical approach to such things.
Let me give you an example - I personally believe its your right to endanger your own life, I love to snowboard, I enjoy drugs, I drink too much and once every 4 years I pick up smoking for a month during the world cup, all those things are not good to me, but as long as I don't hurt anyone, the state should get the fuck out of my way and let me be the safety third dumbass that I am.
Now by that logic I should be against seatbelt laws, and yet I'm not.
Seatbelt laws saves lives, a whole lot of them, and all you have to give up is the freedom of not having to put a seatbelt on, which I consider to be a small an unimportant one.

How do you justify that distinction in a way that doesn't privilege your subjective appraisal of worth over another's? It's no stretch to imagine someone saying that the freedom to snowboard is "a small and unimportant one," or arguing that the freedom to not wear a seatbelt is at least as important as that. What if the seatbelt-scofflaw finds as much thrill in not wearing a seatbelt as you do in snowboarding, for instance? As for smoking, it's easy to build an argument that the freedom to smoke is "a small and unimportant one," and that exercising that freedom is directly (and significantly) harmful to health--and not just the smoker's health, either!

I guess you could say, "Well, I'm just being inconsistent," but I doubt that that's true. Surely there's some principle that explains the exception you make for seatbelt laws. So, what is it?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Echoes is a spoke and wheel. Except the fucking dark Aether which then makes you dimension hop stupidly.

Mario and half of Zelda were disapointments. Everyone thought Prime was going to be a disaster...and RE4 too after their long developments and genre hops.

I need to come clean: Sunshine sucked. I've lied for too long about that. I need to admit it. Its a bad game, save for those flud-less levels which are amazing

 

[Metaphoreus]

Oh, and in case this hasn't been mentioned yet:

This weekend thousands of Americans will gather at the 2015 NRA Annual Meeting to celebrate our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And Senator Ted Cruz would like to invite YOU to join him in exercising that right. Donate $25 and you’ll automatically be entered for a chance to join Ted Cruz for an afternoon of shooting in Texas.

I saw this yesterday. I probably shouldn't have Googled "Ted Cruz shooting" today to find it, but whatever.

EDIT: LOL

Limitation of Liability IN NO EVENT SHALL HFA OR OUR EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR VOLUNTEERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF PROFITS OR LOSS OF DATA, WHETHER IN AN ACTION IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITES, THE SERVICES, THE CONTENT OR THE SITE MATERIALS CONTAINED IN OR ACCESSED THROUGH THE SITE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY DAMAGES CAUSED BY OR RESULTING FROM RELIANCE BY USER ON ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HFA, OR THAT RESULT FROM MISTAKES, OMISSIONS, INTERRUPTIONS, DELETION OF FILES OR EMAIL, ERRORS, DEFECTS, VIRUSES, DELAYS IN OPERATION OR TRANSMISSION OR ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, WHETHER OR NOT RESULTING FROM ACTS OF GOD, COMMUNICATIONS FAILURE, THEFT, DESTRUCTION OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO HFA'S RECORDS, PROGRAMS OR SERVICES. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF HFA, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, WHETHER ACTIVE, PASSIVE OR IMPUTED), PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHER THEORY, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITES OR THE SITE MATERIALS EXCEED ANY COMPENSATION YOU PAY, IF ANY, TO HFA FOR ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SITES.

 

[Tamanon]

I'm honestly a little annoyed that Emily's List immediately endorsed Hillary. Not even giving any other female candidate a chance to even try.

 

[Aaron Strife]

This is bad news for Democrats. America has suffered from Clinton fatigue for the past fifteen years. Jeb Bush is going to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota easily. 320 EVs