Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 96 of 111 FirstFirst ... 46869495969798106 ... LastLast
Results 7,126 to 7,200 of 8309
  1. #7126
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Do you remember when BLM protested the Bernie rally, and he just stepped back and let them take the podium and call him a racist and all of his supporters racist and all of that goofy shit?
    How could I forget?

    The man literally marched with MLK, and he still didn't have the balls to stand up to those goofballs. The man would have no chance whatsoever standing up to Trump. He would get bulldozed with no regard for human life.
    I think my fear is that cuckery is just too popular. Like, there might just be enough people who PREFER weakness. Isn't Canada already beyond that, you know with Fidel Trudeau?
  2. #7127
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How could I forget?



    I think my fear is that cuckery is just too popular. Like, there might just be enough people who PREFER weakness. Isn't Canada already beyond that, you know with Fidel Trudeau?
    The three key factors as I see them:

    1. White women won't vote for Bernie.
    2. He'd dominate the black vote, but that's a given anyway.
    3. Bernie's biggest supporters are young, but the new breed that will be able to vote in 2020 are much more conservative than anyone was expecting.
  3. #7128
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    2. He'd dominate the black vote, but that's a given anyway.
    Would he?

    He might get a high % of votes, but I think he would have turnout problems.
  4. #7129
    Yeah I think he would have turnout problems
  5. #7130
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Would he?

    He might get a high % of votes, but I think he would have turnout problems.
    You're right. There aren't as many dead black people available to vote Democrat.
  6. #7131
    Persuasion off the charts.



    I'm like 98% positive that Adams said in a periscope that Oprah would beat anybody if she ran.

    What's he doing here? Trying to convince Oprah to not run. He's making her think "yeah I am very smart" and associating it with not running, putting a visual image of her getting cut up and killed if she runs, and framing it through aversion to loss (which people care more about than gains from win). Also the fact that he's "predicting" probably frames it for Oprah to make the prediction actualize.
  7. #7132
    Also framing it as "she knows". If Oprah has any idea in her mind that she might get slaughtered (she does), then the "she knows" will get her to think that idea is something she knows.
  8. #7133
    Interesting read.

    But I kinda feel like if all this persuasion stuff is legit, Adam's is like Mace Windu trying to take on Palpatine.
  9. #7134
    In this analogy, who is Palpatine?
  10. #7135
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Interesting read.

    But I kinda feel like if all this persuasion stuff is legit, Adam's is like Mace Windu trying to take on Palpatine.
    Windu defeated Palpatine.

    Edit: And just in case someone wants to get on some bullshit thinking they know shit about shit, Lucas said that Windu defeated Palpatine, and that's the word of God on that particular topic.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 01-08-2018 at 11:05 PM.
  11. #7136
    If Oprah is Palpatine, does she know she's Palpatine?

    If we're memeing, Trump is Palpatine, because we always meme Dr. Geotus Vs.G as the bad guy.
  12. #7137
    check out foxnews.com this morning.

    Apparently republicans are shitting their pants over this Oprah thing.....

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...is-brutal.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...president.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...-shame-on.html
  13. #7138
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Yeah there will be a week of this shit, and then it'll be back to mah Russia.
  14. #7139
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    check out foxnews.com this morning.

    Apparently republicans are shitting their pants over this Oprah thing.....

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...is-brutal.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...president.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...-shame-on.html
    I'm not seeing them make any points different than what were made about Trump. Which are bad points.

    The key difference between her and Trump is that Trump wanted to run and was planning for a long time. Oprah is just media hubbub.
  15. #7140
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm not seeing them make any points different than what were made about Trump. Which are bad points
    Sure, but my point was more about the fact that Fox News is running this as a headline. Their going out of their way to show backlash against an Oprah run. Why would they do that if they weren't at least a little threatened by the prospect of her as the Dem nominee in 2020?
  16. #7141
    Oprah. Fuck me.

    If being the president really has nothing do with having any qualifications to run a government, why even have a president? You may as well have a monarchy, or make it into a reality-TV contest "Who wants to be president?".

    That said, things can't be any more ridiculous than they are now. So why not? Oprah vs. Trump 2020 let's have at it.
  17. #7142
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Oprah. Fuck me.

    If being the president really has nothing do with having any qualifications to run a government, why even have a president? You may as well have a monarchy, or make it into a reality-TV contest "Who wants to be president?".

    That said, things can't be any more ridiculous than they are now. So why not? Oprah vs. Trump 2020 let's have at it.
    I want her to be president for a week so I can watch the entire mainstream media slobber over her cock beyond obama levels x10 magnitudes. Then I won't even have to blow my brains out because I'll for sure enter a perpetual comatose state.
  18. #7143
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Sure, but my point was more about the fact that Fox News is running this as a headline. Their going out of their way to show backlash against an Oprah run. Why would they do that if they weren't at least a little threatened by the prospect of her as the Dem nominee in 2020?
    They're in the entertainment business, and this is entertainment for the unwashed masses.
  19. #7144
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm not seeing them make any points different than what were made about Trump. Which are bad points.

    The key difference between her and Trump is that Trump wanted to run and was planning for a long time. Oprah is just media hubbub.
    Oh, wuf, I was not aware of your telepathic abilities, please tell me more about Oprah's inner thoughts.

    I can guess that you'll have some lame reply ready to go about how Trump had been making noises about running for office for a long time, etc. I mean, if you're tempted to go here, just don't. You're playing at mind reader, and it's hard to read it as anything more than partisanship. There are a lot of similarities, and it's really grasping at straws to try to distinguish her potential run from his in this way.
  20. #7145
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Oh, wuf, I was not aware of your telepathic abilities, please tell me more about Oprah's inner thoughts.

    I can guess that you'll have some lame reply ready to go about how Trump had been making noises about running for office for a long time, etc. I mean, if you're tempted to go here, just don't. You're playing at mind reader, and it's hard to read it as anything more than partisanship. There are a lot of similarities, and it's really grasping at straws to try to distinguish her potential run from his in this way.
    lol ok
  21. #7146
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Persuasion off the charts.



    I'm like 98% positive that Adams said in a periscope that Oprah would beat anybody if she ran.

    What's he doing here? Trying to convince Oprah to not run. He's making her think "yeah I am very smart" and associating it with not running, putting a visual image of her getting cut up and killed if she runs, and framing it through aversion to loss (which people care more about than gains from win). Also the fact that he's "predicting" probably frames it for Oprah to make the prediction actualize.
    He has no influence over Oprah and is quite happy to say completely opposite things years in advance so he can quote whatever he wants. He won't start backing up predictions regularly until much closer to the time when a lot more info is available. What he is doing by tweeting about current trends is getting people such as yourself to advertise to other members of hos target audience. Plus being able to quote something you are saying years on advance seems smart.
  22. #7147
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    He has no influence over Oprah and is quite happy to say completely opposite things years in advance so he can quote whatever he wants. He won't start backing up predictions regularly until much closer to the time when a lot more info is available. What he is doing by tweeting about current trends is getting people such as yourself to advertise to other members of hos target audience. Plus being able to quote something you are saying years on advance seems smart.
    That as well. It's not like I don't know this.

    Also, if Oprah is serious about running (serious enough to win), she reads Adams.
  23. #7148
    Persuasion works even when you tell the person you are persuading. That's why it's persuasion. It doesn't do logic. It engages emotions and the primitive mind.
  24. #7149
    No it's literally just what I said it is. He says things that are big in the news and will get hits so he gets more followers and grows.

    You need to realise things like that, it's important.
  25. #7150
    The premises of this argument seem to be that a) Oprah pays attention to what Adams says; and b) that he knows she does; and c) that he is trying to persuade her not to run using 3D chess tactics; d) he is a good enough persuader that he can succeed in doing so; and therefore e) Oprah probably won't run.

    I think Savy's interpretation is a bit more elegant.
  26. #7151
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    No it's literally just what I said it is. He says things that are big in the news and will get hits so he gets more followers and grows.

    You need to realise things like that, it's important.
    I have literally said on this forum that he does this. I am keenly aware of many of the nuances involved.
  27. #7152
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I have literally said on this forum that he does this. I am keenly aware of many of the nuances involved.
    Ye you're a smart person, I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know apart from that fact that this is literally the only reason. He isn't trying to influence who wins the election, not even who runs for it. Even the bit I said about having something to reference so he can make out he predicted it is just a byproduct of him publicising himself.

    Maybe it's happened enough now that he realises this, I imagine so.
  28. #7153
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The premises of this argument seem to be that a) Oprah pays attention to what Adams says; and b) that he knows she does; and c) that he is trying to persuade her not to run using 3D chess tactics; d) he is a good enough persuader that he can succeed in doing so; and therefore e) Oprah probably won't run.

    I think Savy's interpretation is a bit more elegant.
    His interpretation is ALSO good.

    Believe me when I tell you he does many things for self-promotion as well as to attempt to change perspectives.
  29. #7154
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    He isn't trying to influence who wins the election, not even who runs for it. .
    How do you know this?

    We don't know one way or the other.

    Given what I know about him, it is very unlikely that he is not trying to influence.
  30. #7155
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How do you know this?

    The same question applies to you both.

    The difference is Savy's interpretation is more believable because it rests on the straightforward premise that the guy is looking out for his bank account. Yours assumes he not only cares about what he's talking about but is trying to influence the outcome through some kind of double-reverse 3D psychology - reverse psychology being telling someone they can't do something so they try to prove you wrong, double-reverse 3D psych being telling them they can, then telling them they have no chance, thus making them not try. It makes no sense really.

    In reality, build-up/tear-down is a pretty good motivating technique for a lot of people. That's why so many coaches use it.

    Still, all of this assumes Adams has any kind of influence on what Oprah does or doesn't do, which I think might overestimates his influence.
  31. #7156
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The same question applies to you both.
    He used specific techniques he discusses using to persuade. That doesn't mean that is what he was doing, but it suggests it strongly.
  32. #7157
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Still, all of this assumes Adams has any kind of influence on what Oprah does or doesn't do, which I think might overestimates his influence.
    It could. That doesn't change the persuasion content of the tweet however. One of the things Adams was probably doing was assuming that Oprah might read him. It is evident that he is probably among the most widely read public figures on politics.
  33. #7158
    I think if Oprah runs, her run may suffer from being anointed before the primaries even have started just like Hilary suffered from the same. If her goal is just to become president, fine, roll the dice-- but if her goal is to affect change, she may be better off just stumping harder then hell for her preferred candidate.
  34. #7159
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I think if Oprah runs, her run may suffer from being anointed before the primaries even have started just like Hilary suffered from the same. If her goal is just to become president, fine, roll the dice-- but if her goal is to affect change, she may be better off just stumping harder then hell for her preferred candidate.
    I agree with that.

    She *could* avoid the pitfall you mentioned, but that doesn't mean she would. She would probably fall right into it like you said.
  35. #7160
    I have half a mind that Hillary plans to run again.
  36. #7161
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I have half a mind that Hillary plans to run again.
    Yes, so Trump can beat her again, this time convincingly.



    This is the reason why you Americans will always lose. The Establishment.

    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  37. #7162
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    And more. Bernie's wealth is a problem.



    US Politics is a fucking joke
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  38. #7163
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    And more. Bernie's wealth is a problem.



    US Politics is a fucking joke
    It's not his [newly acquired] wealth [that he only gained through his miserable failure of a presidential run] that's an issue against him for the purposes of politics in the media. It's his hypocrisy.
  39. #7164
    That and his inability to say things remotely correct.
  40. #7165
    nm
  41. #7166
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina


    The Kadian Noble case by itself would crush any campaign she got going before it even started.

    And it's not like Oprah would get anywhere with any kind of presidential run nonsense with the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls turning into a hotbed for getting sexually assaulted.

    "There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die."
    This direct quote about her feelings on how groups of Americans just have to die won't help the situation either.
  42. #7167
    Is the drip drip drip of Obama's crimes preparation to get the country behind indicting him for his crimes?
  43. #7168
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Is the drip drip drip of Obama's crimes preparation to get the country behind indicting him for his crimes?
    #lockhimup
  44. #7169
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    It's not his [newly acquired] wealth [that he only gained through his miserable failure of a presidential run] that's an issue against him for the purposes of politics in the media. It's his hypocrisy.
    Explain his hypocrisy to me please?

    Even though this was already addressed in the video, as to how dense you have to be to view any of his shtick as hypocrisy, I'd still like an account from someone with boots-on-the-ground on this talking point


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That and his inability to say things remotely correct.
    #bernieiswrong?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  45. #7170
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Explain his hypocrisy to me please?

    Even though this was already addressed in the video, as to how dense you have to be to view any of his shtick as hypocrisy, I'd still like an account from someone with boots-on-the-ground on this talking point.
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    It's not his [newly acquired] wealth [that he only gained through his miserable failure of a presidential run] that's an issue against him for the purposes of politics in the media. It's his hypocrisy.
    Again, for the purposes of politics in the media, he has multiple houses and a net worth in the seven-figure range (largely thanks to donations that suckers made during the election, but that's a different story) but thinks people should be forced to give up what they work for because mah socialism.
  46. #7171
    Selfishness is thinking you're entitled to what other people have.
  47. #7172
    My man Sowell. Always with the bantz.

  48. #7173
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Selfishness is thinking you're entitled to what other people have.
    No it's not. Selfishness is something we all have to differing degrees, it's that part of us that gives more of a fuck about oneself than others.

    If I smoke around someone who doesn't like smoke, I'm being selfish, despite me not feeling entitled to anything they have.

    On the other hand, if someone owes me money, and they're not paying it me back, I'm not being selfish by feeling entitled to what they have.

    Selfishness is a lack of consideration for others. It's not desire or envy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #7174
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    On the other hand, if someone owes me money, and they're not paying it me back, I'm not being selfish by feeling entitled to what they have.
    Good point. I certainly didn't mean that.

    When something is more rightfully Bill's than rightfully Ted's, if Ted acts upon his a feeling of deserving what is more rightfully Bill's, Ted is selfish.
  50. #7175
    Sure, wanting what isn't yours is selfish, but selfish isn't wanting what isn't yours. You got it the wrong way round, even without me being a pedant about things like debt.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #7176
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sure, wanting what isn't yours is selfish, but selfish isn't wanting what isn't yours. You got it the wrong way round, even without me being a pedant about things like debt.
    I get the confusion, because the way I worded it looks likes the description is the entire set of selfishness. When I typed it up, I saw that possible confusion, and wondered if the phrasing is common enough that it wouldn't cause confusion. I thought it is common enough, but maybe it's not.
  52. #7177
    It's probably ok, it's just I'm a pedant who can't just leave this shit alone. I think there's something wrong with me to be honest.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #7178
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    My man Sowell. Always with the bantz.

    He should have been more greedy with the dictionary.

    Greed means wanting things in excess. If a billionaire gives nothing to charity because he doesn't want to have less money himself, then yeah, that's being a greedy cunt. If a starving person asks someone else for money to feed himself, that's not being a greedy cunt.
  54. #7179
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    The mentally ill left strikes again.
  55. #7180
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    He should have been more greedy with the dictionary.

    Greed means wanting things in excess. If a billionaire gives nothing to charity because he doesn't want to have less money himself, then yeah, that's being a greedy cunt. If a starving person asks someone else for money to feed himself, that's not being a greedy cunt.
    This does not address the point and it changes the subject.
  56. #7181
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This does not address the point and it changes the subject.
    No, he's using a word that means 'wanting things in excess' and applying it to people it doesn't apply to, and asking why it applies to people it does apply to. At best, that makes him a person who doesn't understand the words he's using.

    If instead he had said 'people who don't work hard shouldn't expect people who do work hard to give them money', that would be a cogent and wholly defensible argument because it doesn't imply that the hard working people are rolling in excess and the lazy people are asking for untold riches. But because that's already been said a million times, he instead perverts the language to make the point he's trying to get across sound poignant, so people who don't see through the logical stupidity of what he said sit back and go 'oooh'.

    In fact the only thing more retarded than what he said is then quoting what he said, putting it in a nice font and having a nice picture of him next to it, as if it's a quote from Einstein, instead of from a retard who doesn't articulate what he means.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-11-2018 at 07:54 PM.
  57. #7182
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    No, he's using a word that means 'wanting things in excess' and applying it to people it doesn't apply to, and asking why it applies to people it does apply to. At best, that makes him a person who doesn't understand the words he's using.

    If instead he had said 'people who don't work hard shouldn't expect people who do work hard to give them money', that would be a cogent and wholly defensible argument because it doesn't imply that the hard working people are rolling in excess and the lazy people are asking for untold riches. But because that's already been said a million times, he instead perverts the language to make the point he's trying to get across sound poignant, so people who don't see through the logical stupidity of what he said sit back and go 'oooh'.

    In fact the only thing more retarded than what he said is then quoting what he said, putting it in a nice font and having a nice picture of him next to it, as if it's a quote from Einstein, instead of from a retard who doesn't articulate what he means.
    His statement is a way of describing how this view confuses him. His statement is a way of describing that he believes that "wanting things in excess" includes thinking that one has rightful acquisition of something one has not earned, and curiously that it is not considered "wanting things in excess" when one wants to keep what one has earned.
  58. #7183
    I know what he's trying to say because it's already been said a million times, except with clarity. My problem is with him phrasing it as though he's somehow saying something profound when it fact he's just butchering the language. What makes it more annoying is that his quote is being framed like it is profound.
  59. #7184
    I find it profound because it highlights that many people think that wanting somebody else's money is not excess beyond what they should while wanting to keep what one has earned is considered excess.

    I certainly never thought of it that way until I saw what Sowell said. But I come from the Bernie Sanders side of things, where I used to think it was totally normal that wanting to take from others was philanthropic and moral (as long as it's filtered as "fair" and "helping the poor") while wanting to keep one's own was greed.
  60. #7185
    It all depends on where on the spectrum you put 'excess' I suppose. If you think a rich man should have 3 yachts, 6 houses, and 12 cars rather than 2 yachts, 4 houses, and 5 cars, so as to keep poor people from starving, and him resisting that makes him greedy, that's one thing that most people wouldn't dispute. If you think a middle-class family that doesn't want to give their money to a programme that gives every lazy bum a free vacation is being greedy, that's quite another that most people would agree is retarded.

    The problem with his wording is that he doesn't indicate where that line should be drawn, but rather implies that it's morally fine for the billionaire to have what is clearly in excess of what he could possibly ever need while the poor man starves, and if the latter expects help from the former that makes the poor man the greedy one.
  61. #7186
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I find it profound because it highlights that many people think that wanting somebody else's money is not excess beyond what they should while wanting to keep what one has earned is considered excess.

    I certainly never thought of it that way until I saw what Sowell said. But I come from the Bernie Sanders side of things, where I used to think it was totally normal that wanting to take from others was philanthropic and moral (as long as it's filtered as "fair" and "helping the poor") while wanting to keep one's own was greed.
    A few weeks ago or so, I mentioned that I'd previously endured a lot of suffering behind the idea that everyone was equal. This seems like the same type of deal for you.
  62. #7187
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It all depends on where on the spectrum you put 'excess' I suppose. If you think a rich man should have 3 yachts, 6 houses, and 12 cars rather than 2 yachts, 4 houses, and 5 cars, so as to keep poor people from starving, and him resisting that makes him greedy, that's one thing that most people wouldn't dispute. If you think a middle-class family that doesn't want to give their money to a programme that gives every lazy bum a free vacation is being greedy, that's quite another that most people would agree is retarded.

    The problem with his wording is that he doesn't indicate where that line should be drawn, but rather implies that it's morally fine for the billionaire to have what is clearly in excess of what he could possibly ever need while the poor man starves, and if the latter expects help from the former that makes the poor man the greedy one.
    That's the frame that is used to make it seem not greedy to want to take from somebody while being greedy to want to keep one's own. I liked what Sowell said back when I first saw it because it showed me that this frame isn't reality but a frame.
  63. #7188
    Another problem with this concept is the idea of 'keeping what you've earned'. Did you earn the road you drive to work on? No? Then get the fuck off it. So you're sixteen and both your parents just died in a car crach, but you haven't earned anything in life and need a leg up? Tough shit.

    Moreover, 'earned' and 'deserved' don't always go hand in hand. Some people acquire a lot more wealth than they arguably deserve and others just the opposite. If you inherit a fortune did you 'earn' it? If your house burns down and the insurance company bails on paying you, did you 'earn' that loss?

    The whole premise that people get what they deserve in life ignores how much variance there is out there.
  64. #7189
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That's the frame that is used to make it seem not greedy to want to take from somebody while being greedy to want to keep one's own. I liked what Sowell said back when I first saw it because it showed me that this frame isn't reality but a frame.
    So the billionaire who pays no taxes but enjoys all the benefits of gov't isn't being greedy, is that it? He just wants to keep what he has?
  65. #7190
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    A few weeks ago or so, I mentioned that I'd previously endured a lot of suffering behind the idea that everyone was equal. This seems like the same type of deal for you.
    Could be. I'm not sure what to think about my personal experience on this.
  66. #7191
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Another problem with this concept is the idea of 'keeping what you've earned'. Did you earn the road you drive to work on? No? Then get the fuck off it. So you're sixteen and both your parents just died in a car crach, but you haven't earned anything in life and need a leg up? Tough shit.

    Moreover, 'earned' and 'deserved' don't always go hand in hand. Some people acquire a lot more wealth than they arguably deserve and others just the opposite. If you inherit a fortune did you 'earn' it? If your house burns down and the insurance company bails on paying you, did you 'earn' that loss?

    The whole premise that people get what they deserve in life ignores how much variance there is out there.
    So the billionaire who pays no taxes but enjoys all the benefits of gov't isn't being greedy, is that it? He just wants to keep what he has?
    These are generally good points worth addressing.

    What I'm saying I find interesting is the idea that we can all take from you and that's not greedy but if you want to keep it you're greedy.
  67. #7192
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What I'm saying I find interesting is the idea that we can all take from you and that's not greedy but if you want to keep it you're greedy.
    This idea characterizes how quite a number of people view the world. And that view is justified with things like "majority rule" or "but he has this percentage more than another." I'm not saying those views are altogether wrong. I am saying they need to be thought about a little more deeply.
  68. #7193
    I can envision a world in which we could say "yeah actually we are being greedy by taking from others" AND ALSO "it's the right thing to do for such and such reason."

    But we can't even get to that point. Instead it's "there's nothing greedy about wanting to take from others by force but they are greedy if they protest."
  69. #7194
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    What I'm saying I find interesting is the idea that we can all take from you and that's not greedy but if you want to keep it you're greedy.
    It's only greedy to want to keep what you have if you already have too much. And if you want things you need and don't have, that's not greed.

    If one guy says to another 'you have ten cars, six yachts, three mansions, and seven ivory back scratchers, ditch something so me and my family who all lost our arms and legs in a lawnmower factory explosion can eat for a year', that's not being greedy. If the guy comes back and say 'no fuck you i'm keeping it all because it's miiiiiine', then you wouldn't think that's being greedy?
  70. #7195
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's only greedy to want to keep what you have if you already have too much. And if you want things you need and don't have, that's not greed.
    This raises the questions of what is "too much" and what is "need" and who gets to decide the answer to those questions.

    If one guy says to another 'you have ten cars, six yachts, three mansions, and seven ivory back scratchers, ditch something so me and my family who all lost our arms and legs in a lawnmower factory explosion can eat for a year', that's not being greedy. If the guy comes back and say 'no fuck you i'm keeping it all because it's miiiiiine', then you wouldn't think that's being greedy?
    Sure, that's greedy, and it's also quite non-general. For example, I suspect that Sowell would claim that his statement is based on circumstances within a certain number of standard deviations from the mean. He probably wouldn't say something like his quote if he were trying to characterize circumstances that are many standard deviations from the mean.
  71. #7196
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's only greedy to want to keep what you have if you already have too much.
    This is the exact thinking that's led to hundreds of millions of people being killed in the name of communism, and anyone who believes it is a subhuman piece of shit who doesn't deserve to live.
  72. #7197
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If a billionaire gives nothing to charity because he doesn't want to have less money himself, then yeah, that's being a greedy cunt. If a starving person asks someone else for money to feed himself, that's not being a greedy cunt.
    What you're saying is that it's greedy to want to keep to yourself what you worked for, while it's not greedy to be so unproductive that you get to the point of starvation, which then forces you to beg for money off those who are productive.

    This is why spoon thinks the left are insane, and he's not a million miles away. I prefer the term "deluded" to "insane", but we're splitting hairs.

    And I'm someone who believes unemployment benefits should exist. Through all my years of claiming benefits, I've never felt I was acting morally. I think benefits are essential because without them we'd have slums with horrible crime. That doesn't mean to say that I think benefits are moral. They're not. They punish hard working people to reward the incapable and unwilling. It's just that if these people were left ot fend for themselves, the punsihment for hard working people would be worse than simple tax... it would be an unsafe environment.

    Just because person A is rich and person B is starving, doesn't mean person A is the greedy cunt. He's just better at life. Fine, give some money to the sucker who failed, but don't pretend that the starving person is sitting on top of Mount Morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #7198
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That doesn't mean to say that I think benefits are moral. They're not. They punish hard working people to reward the incapable and unwilling. It's just that if these people were left ot fend for themselves, the punsihment for hard working people would be worse than simple tax... it would be an unsafe environment.
    That's extortion. Also, factually inaccurate. You can't say for sure that diminishing benefits would result in more crime. You mention incapable and unwilling. Incapable is easy to identify. And a humane civilization should provide safety nets for those people. But the unwilling can go fuck themselves. Your assertion that they would turn to a life of crime if benefits dried up, is totally bananas. Look at yourself. You needed extra money, so you got work fencing printer parts. What stopped you from instead robbing a liquor store?

    Sure, with poverty comes crime. However, it would be morally wrong to give out benefits to people because of a threat of increased crime. It would be better to spend the money on more cops to catch the criminals and remove them from society altogether. They aren't willing to work. They aren't willing to respect that law. What right do they have to exist among society?

    Just because person A is rich and person B is starving, doesn't mean person A is the greedy cunt. He's just better at life. Fine, give some money to the sucker who failed, but don't pretend that the starving person is sitting on top of Mount Morality.
    If person A walked by Person B and gave him money, it is Person A who is being the greedy cunt.

    When you give money to someone on the street, you are simply enabling that person to remain a worthless piece of street-shit. You're not helping him. You're not aiding him. You're not giving him any relief from the miserable cycle of sewage that is his day to day life. You're simply enabling it, extending it, and normalizing it.

    And why? Because of a greedy, selfish, narcissistic desire to make yourself feel generous.
  74. #7199
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And why? Because of a greedy, selfish, narcissistic desire to make yourself feel generous.
    On the same principle, one of my girls has a young brother who is 19 or 20 who is a heroin junkie. He's in and out of jail for stealing shit, writing bad checks, etc. Her family keeps bailing him out and pouring tons of money into lawyers and shit, and every time he gets out, he stays clean for like a week tops and then goes right back to it. They're enabling him and literally killing him just so that they feel like they're being good people.
  75. #7200
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    literally killing him
    ^ Not an exaggeration

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •