crapwittyname @ crapwittyname @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

462

Joined

2 yr. ago

How else would you describe someone who follows and attacks someone based on some need to fulfill an imaginary direction from an authority

"Cunt"

It's not "more special", it's different. Context matters, and there are centuries of context. Anti Muslim slurs point to different stereotypes and belittle people in different ways than anti Jewish slurs. Why not have different words for the sake of accuracy? Most other categories of things have this linguistic construction, so why not bigotry?

Nope. The most die hard, anti death penalty believer has no limits and literally says "we do not have the right to take anyone's life, even if they are Hitler. In fact it would be better for society if we got to try to rehabilitate Hitler".
And I agree with them.

The answer is because everything is lazy, and it's easier to obey the laws of physics than not to. The path of least resistance is real.
Why are the laws of physics the way they are and not different? I have a degree in physics and I still don't know the answer to that, annoyingly.

I still fail to understand what your issue is with the paradox? I can't see why it would be easier or more effective to explain a social contract than a paradox. It differs from other reciprocal social contracts, such as trust for example, because a) it's the lack of the commodity itself (tolerance) which dictates whether it should be granted and b) it's not global, i.e. you can remain tolerant of a bigot's queerness while not tolerating their hatred. I think a) makes it a paradox, which sets it apart from other social contracts. So why not call it a paradox? I'm still not getting it.

"those who make monopolistic fortunes off the sick while also dictating refusal of care to the sick" is hardly arbitrary, though, is it. It's quite a high bar to clear, that. It's rational too, since they do many orders of magnitude more harm than e.g. a death row inmate, whom society is content to destroy.

Ohhhh, sorry! A patsy (watch the spelling!) is someone who takes the fall for, or is otherwise manipulated by someone else.

"Dr. Blakeley is not a patsy for the previous government, according to that report", would be my guess?

Well there is no way to settle that bet, otherwise I would absolutely take it.

What? You think every single teenager universally disobeys their parents? I know for a fact this isn't true. There exist responsible teenagers. Brides, even if a teenager is disobedient, the placement of boundaries changes their behaviour.

Peer pressure is real. Kids get social media accounts way too early because it's difficult to justify holding off when all of their classmates have them. It causes actual social issues for kids when they are the only one without something. They get bullied etc, so parents are effectively forced to accede. Making it illegal gives parents a reason to say no, which might slow down the uptake.

Two things. First, I'm not pro-communist. I'm anti capitalist. There's a subtle but really important difference. I can be against one system without being for another.

Secondly, I am able to apply the failings of capitalism to the system as a whole, by looking at its roots. I'm not from the USA and I'm not only looking at US capitalism. Capitalism is inherently exploitative, favouring people who own interest-accruing property over people who work. It favours the amassing of wealth, which necessarily comes at the cost of other people's well-being and success. We see the outcome of this is that the people who are most rewarded by the system are the most inhumane, to the point where the top earners are outright sociopaths. The people who suffer are those who just try to get along. All of this is universal across all countries and interpretations of capitalism. The system rewards greed and unscrupulousness, and punishes compassion. It's destructive at this stage because it is being allowed to run rampant, unchecked by any common sense. It's ok in small doses, but the neoliberal consensus is global.

Lol, right. So let's break down this down since Communism has miserably failed every test and attempt it's attempt at being used ....

Interesting you should bring this up, because capitalism has failed every time, too. Communism has been tried, what three times? And capitalism about 300. So communism is winning on this front, in fact it's 100 times more successful by comparison.

Yes, because capitalism is the dominant power structure in the world, and communism is one of its anathemas, communism has been suppressed and demonised at every opportunity. This is a historical fact. I don't know if communism would work under different circumstances, but I'm certain it can't work under the circumstances in which we have found ourselves since the second world war, circumstances which are hostile to communism. There's a good chance that had it gone the other way, I would be here claiming communism is the root cause of most societal problems.
Capitalism is not intrinsically better than communism when you count oppression and unnecessary suffering and death as the metric.
Stanning for the status quo while we descend into late stage capitalism and people are being stripped of their economic and social freedoms like never before is a pretty awful stance. Look around you, the world is fucked. And the world is capitalist. The system does not work. Unless you're a billionaire, you should have quite a lot to complain about.

Capitalism is the root cause of a whole heap of major problems. Almost all of them in fact. I suppose you could go one further and settle on greed as the cause. But since capitalism is institutionalised greed, it still wouldn't excuse capitalism even if you did.

Liberal tears are already known to be the most expensive commodity in the known universe, cf. Brexit.

Jesus. That's worrying.

They raided journalists' homes? I am not as wired in to the news as I have been so I must've missed this, what happened?

Don't forget ESA's ATV and the NASA RRM for refuelling the ISS. As was the case with launchers for a while, the Europeans and the Americans have beautiful, expensive and awesome solutions, while the Russians just get the job done (often by waiving safety standards)

Anyway, the ISS is a different beast, it's in LEO and it didn't need to be launched in one go, so you can send up heavy equipment and integrate it on-orbit, activities which require Gantt charts so autistic that my eyes bleed when I think about them. Starship-to-Starship refuelling would mean sending a single spacecraft up with all the necessary equipment to do propellant transfer, which is what I was thinking of when I wrote my comment, as you say.

It's easier to store. Aside from it being the single most hazardous chemical substance known to man, that is