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

The way to show government should intervene into personal lives

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 76 to 150 of 193
  1. #76
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Banana's right, the rest of your are wrong, pack it in, thread's over.

    The government should fuck all the way the fuck off with trying to control shit it shouldn't even come close to trying to control like wearing a fucking seat belt.
  2. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If every time he spoke on the phone and drank coffee while driving it caused a child to be saved from a kidnapping, his behavior would reduce risk.
    You might as well say 'if every time he drove into a tree he saved a squirrel he would have ran over had he stayed on the road'.
  3. #78
    lolspoon is such a troll.
  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You might as well say 'if every time he drove into a tree he saved a squirrel he would have ran over had he stayed on the road'.
    Sure. That being a reasonable proposition isn't something I intended to present.

    I'd like to just make the case that if somebody proposes a law, maybe a good question to ask is "how do you know?"

    It's like Sowell's three questions to any proposal:

    What is the evidence
    At what cost
    Opposed to what

    So, even if it makes quick-intuitive sense that it would be better for wearing seat belts to be a law, well, maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. We gotta quantify the costs associated to start to figure it out. And the costs are more than just what the government pays to enforce the law. The costs include things about what cops would otherwise be doing, what people would otherwise be doing, what car companies would otherwise be doing, and probably an unknown that at least attempts to adjust for unintended consequences, etc..
  5. #80
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    lolspoon is such a troll.
    The same line of thinking that the government should be able to make it illegal to not wear a seat belt is the same line of thinking that led to the government making it illegal to get fucked in the ass in the privacy of your own home. It's trying to regulate personal choice based on irrational lines of thought, much like the almighty war on drugs has been doing for decades to great acclaim, when the fact of the matter is that the government has no business doing it in the first place.

    I don't think people should do drugs. I think everyone who does heroin on a regular basis should be shot in the fucking head. But it's not something the government should make illegal.

    Yes, it's harmful to the person, on average, not to wear a seat belt. Yes, it's harmful to the person, on average, to do heroin.

    It's called thinning the fucking herd.

    Don't forget that I'm a fucking redneck. Rednecks don't like the government. This kind of shit is why. The government has no fucking business whatsoever trying to legislate personal choice.

    If you're in favor of a law against not wearing your seat belt, then you're in favor of a law that makes abortion illegal. It's the same fucking principle. What happened to "My body, my choice" that these baby killing liberal fucks always chant?
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-20-2017 at 09:08 PM.
  6. #81
    I wonder if the points each "side" here is making are going past the heads of the other side. Here's why I say that.

    BStand and Spoon argue that the government should stay out of things that are sufficiently personal. I agree, and most people probably do agree (but with difference in what is "sufficient"). However, Mademoiselle Poopadoop and others argue that if there is sufficient risk of harm via externality to others in a personal decision, government should intervene.

    I agree with the BStand and Spoon position, though the irony is that even BStand and I would disagree on the details. Example: I think taxing in order to spend on public education intervenes on something I consider sufficiently personal; he doesn't. A solution here might be to define how we can determine if something is sufficiently personal. I don't know how to do that, probably because it's a really abstract concept.*

    Regarding the other side, the idea that government should intervene to reduce negative externality, that's less abstract. It can be more easily measured. This was in part the purpose of the thread. That was more than just quantifying what government can do to reduce negative externality but also quantifying the costs and opportunity costs of government doing it in a way that finds if it is more efficient than if the private sector were to be left to its own devices. For clarity, I never quantified but explained what I think should be quantified.


    *One possible way to figure this out is through triangulation. If it is shown that government can more efficiently allocate resources to individual preferences than the private sector choosing freely can, then that might be enough to call that issue one that is not sufficiently personal to keep government out of it. Maybe.
  7. #82
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    If it is shown that government can more efficiently allocate resources
    I spit water all over my desk reading this part.
  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I spit water all over my desk reading this part.
    I have a thought experiment where it could happen.



    Let's say there are ten subjects in a room and one researcher with them. The researcher shows them an object that can be bought and if it is bought it is shared amongst them all. The object costs $50. Each individual is asked how much he would buy the object for. Each response is $10. They are asked if they want to buy the object. Each answer is no, because each would lose $40 of value/happiness/preference if he bought it.

    Then the researcher says that they can organize their money in such a way that they can buy the object together, so they could each put in $5 to buy the object, and by doing so they would each increase their happiness by $5 since they value the object at $10. Then each individual says "How dare you assume we want to work together to make ourselves better off, you bigot! We want nothing of this cooperation! Now we only value the object at $2 a piece!" So they don't organize to buy the object and they don't gain.

    But then the researcher tells them he will take $5 from each of them regardless of their input or their efforts and he will buy the object for them and they will all benefit by $5 and there is nothing they can do to stop him because he knows better than they do. They each then say, "Yippee glorious enforcer of good sense! Please take our money and do what is best for us!"



    Well, I just showed how a government could hypothetically make people better off than they could make themselves. One problem: it involves assuming people are fucking ridiculous. Though that isn't entirely out of the question in the real world. The case can be made that because government is thought of similarly to God, people gain benefit because they think government is helping them even as government is harming them.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 12-20-2017 at 11:18 PM.
  9. #84
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Assuming people are ridiculous is practical.
    Anyone can look at their own personal history to confirm this.
  10. #85
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I have a thought experiment where it could happen.
    It's not surprising that it takes using your imagination to think of a scenario where the government can efficiently do anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Well, I just showed how a government could hypothetically make people better off than they could make themselves
    It's not a question of the government [hypothetically] making people better off than they could make themselves. It's a question of whether the government has a right to. It doesn't.
  11. #86
    Spoon - the gov't has a right to intervene when it can be incontrovertibly demonstrated that the gov't can make a better decision than you otherwise would, or could.

    For example. Some people think it's ok to text and drive. Some people think that they are perfectly able to maintain focus on the road, and their phone. Some people think it's a worthwhile risk to send a text while moving 2 tons of steel at 70mph.

    Those people are wrong. No matter what they think....the incontrovertible fact is that texting and driving is dangerous not just to you, but to other people on the road. Therefore, the gov't is totally within its rights to make a law banning texting and driving.

    When you take a flight, do you review the maintenance records for the plane? Do you review the pilot's history? Smell his breath for alcohol? Or do you just go on orbitz and buy a damn ticket? Most people don't have the engineering or aviation knowledge to determine if a plane is safe or if a pilot is qualified. Therefore, they are unable to make informed choices about which planes to fly on. So, it falls on the government to ensure safety by enforcing maintenance standards and pilot licensing.

    In the case of drugs, spoon, they are addictive. Addicts are unable to make sound decisions regarding substance use. The substance removes personal freedom. Therefore, the government is right to stop it.
  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I agree with the BStand and Spoon position, though the irony is that even BStand and I would disagree on the details. Example: I think taxing in order to spend on public education intervenes on something I consider sufficiently personal; he doesn't
    Wuf...the thing you're missing on education is 'risk'.

    Private enterprises make profits by taking risks. Therefore a privatized education system would carry some degree of risk.

    The government would be wrong to assume risk in the course of meeting its obligations. Each citizen is guaranteed an education. Guaranteed doesn't mean "most probably", it doesn't mean "should happen", it means guaran-fucking-teed.
  13. #88
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Spoon - the gov't has a right to intervene when it can be incontrovertibly demonstrated that the gov't can make a better decision than you otherwise would, or could.
    By that logic, the government has the right to control exactly what each person eats and drinks at all times. That's just one simple example of why you're wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    In the case of drugs, spoon, they are addictive. Addicts are unable to make sound decisions regarding substance use. The substance removes personal freedom. Therefore, the government is right to stop it.
    So are video games. Should the government make a law that make video games illegal, except the ones they want to profit from selling you? Of course not. That's another example of why you're wrong.
  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    It's a question of whether the government has a right to. It doesn't.
    What would make government have a right to?
  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Wuf...the thing you're missing on education is 'risk'.

    Private enterprises make profits by taking risks. Therefore a privatized education system would carry some degree of risk.

    The government would be wrong to assume risk in the course of meeting its obligations. Each citizen is guaranteed an education. Guaranteed doesn't mean "most probably", it doesn't mean "should happen", it means guaran-fucking-teed.
    The profits private enterprise make represent the value they provide. So, given your premise that profits derive from risk, an education system that takes less risk generates less value, meaning people would get worse education in such a system.
  16. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    By that logic, the government has the right to control exactly what each person eats and drinks at all times. That's just one simple example of why you're wrong.
    You're wrong because you're insisting on absolutes. By your logic, I should be able to eat sheet-rock screws. Yet, if I go into the cafeteria at lunchtime and open up a tupperware bin of jagged steel shards I can assure you that eventually some representative of the government would stop me, even by force if necessary. And they would be right to.

    Back here in reality now, things aren't always black and white absolutes. Of course the government shouldn't be able to tell you that you need to eat avacados instead of brownies. But does that mean the government should abstain completely from decisions involving what people eat?

    Let me ask you this...how do you know what's healthy? My guess is that like most people, you were taught about food groups, or a food pyramid during your very early education. The government told you what is healthy. That knowledge enhances your personal freedom because it allows you to make better decisions.

    Have you bought a steak recently? Did you verify that prior to sale, the meat was stored and transported properly? Did you verify the adequacy of all sanitary and preservative procedures within the entire supply chain? If not, then isn't it your own stupid fault if the meat is spoiled and makes you sick?

    My premise is that the government is right to act if doing so prevents you from making a decision that you would otherwise not make if you were fully informed. Perpetuating healthy guidelines and regulating the supply chain of perishable products are examples of the government enhancing individual freedoms. It fulfills the government's requirement to maintain a fair marketplace.

    In your world, butchers can sell you tainted meat, Hershey's can tell you that chocolate is healthy, and any psycho out there who wants to eat sheet-rock screws is free to do so to his heart's content.

    So are video games. Should the government make a law that make video games illegal, except the ones they want to profit from selling you? Of course not. That's another example of why you're wrong.
    Again you're talking in absolutes so it's really hard to take it seriously. Look, I don't know what the letter of the law says, but I'm sure there is some language, or legal precedent that sets forth whereabouts the line is. If the only consequence of video game binging is that it eats up your time and productivity, maybe that's below the line.

    However, if I asked you if you would like to die, you would probably say "no". So if you're going to consume a dangerous substance responsible for a gazillion deaths, then you've made a decision contrary to your stated agenda. That means that something has overruled your personal freedom. That compels the government to act.

    By your same logic, everyone who walks down the street is at risk of getting kidnapped. So if that risk is realized, and you're kidnapped, that's on you. So any kidnap victims who were dumb enough to take the risk of walking down the street should not expect any government intervention to restore their personal freedom. That's pretty much what you're saying.

    Just because an addiction compelled someone to do drugs, does not mean that they consented to the risk of death. They did so under the duress of the addiction. You really don't think the government should try to stop people from consenting to a risk that they wouldn't otherwise consent to if they were not afflicted by an addiction?
  17. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The profits private enterprise make represent the value they provide.
    Not true.

    It's actually just one form of value. For example wal-mart provides value by offering convenient access to cheap goods. For poor people, that's a monumental benefit. If wal-mart raised it's prices to increase profits, that benefit would be reduced. Yes the value provided by profits would be increased, but I just don't feel like its a 1:1.
  18. #93
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    However, if I asked you if you would like to die, you would probably say "no".
    It's extremely insensitive to assume this, and I'm basically appalled that you'd even go there. Men are 70-80 percent more likely to die by suicide than women alone, and LGBT individuals are substantially more likely to be suicidal. But I guess you think the government shouldn't allow people to transition since transexual means you're 40 percent more likely to have tried to kill yourself by age 25? You also seem like you would support conversion therapy for gay and bisexual men and women since being gay or bisexual is a significant indicator of suicide in the future?

    The sad thing is that you have no idea how problematic your views are. You aren't even close. You're not in the same ballpark. You're not in the same league. You aren't even playing the same fucking sport.

    I can't really take you seriously now. You're so blind to what you're even suggesting that there's no point in even trying. I mean, if the government thinks that something is bad for you or that they can make better decisions for you than you can make for yourself, they might as well throw you in a gay concentration camp then. You're a danger to other people! You might turn the kids gay!

    I'd ask how you sleep at night, but you probably have no trouble sleeping at all. Your types never do because you don't care about anyone except people who look and act and think and feel just like you do.

    This is the United States of America, not the United States of fucking Nazi heaven. You might want the government to come in and tell everyone what to think and what to feel and what to do, but they don't have that right, and every single time they fucking try, it gets crammed right up their fucking ass.
  19. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Not true.

    It's actually just one form of value. For example wal-mart provides value by offering convenient access to cheap goods. For poor people, that's a monumental benefit. If wal-mart raised it's prices to increase profits, that benefit would be reduced. Yes the value provided by profits would be increased, but I just don't feel like its a 1:1.
    If Walmart raised prices and people bought the same goods at those higher prices, it would mean that their willingness to pay was higher than previously thought, which means they valued the goods higher than previously thought. As far as measuring the value they put on the goods, really the only reliable metric is what they pay, though that may not represent willingness to pay or the "true" value they place on the goods if the price is not "perfectly" set.

    So, I partly misspoke. We don't ever know true value. We only approximate it with prices, and the more competition among freely choosing producers and consumers in the market the better the approximation. Do you think that a government system that uses a more distorted price system can approximate value as well?
  20. #95
    I sense some closeted-rage there spoon. It's ok to be gay. Come on out.

    I don't know what planet you're orbiting right now, but my statement was, "If I asked if you would like to die, you would probably say "no"". If you're actually suicidal....my apologies for the assumption. However your logic fails to address the fact that if I asked someone suicidal if they would like to die, the would probably say "yes". So if a suicidal person takes a shit load of drugs....it's an exercise in personal freedom.

    If a non-suicidal person does something gravely dangerous, then that is a symptom that their personal freedom has been compromised. That should compel government action. How do you not see the difference?

    Furthermore, I'm not sure why you've suddenly taken up the cause of transexual depression, but I guess I'll play along. If you can prove to me, definitively, scientifically, that transexual-ism causes suicidal tendencies then that might be enough to raise the government's eyebrow. If you can demonstrate, incontrovertibly, that transexual behavior actually raises the risk of suicide to a level that cannot be ignored by anyone using common sense and sound judgement, then it might be something to look into. If you can show me that people choose a transexual lifestyle despite ominous risks to their existence, then that would be evidence that something about transexual behavior compromises individual freedom.

    However, none of that seems to be true. What seems to be happening is that bullying and societal pressures are driving people toward drastic behaviors. That's the cause of the suicides, not the actual transexual-ism. Gay concentration camps wouldn't help the problem at all, so I'm not sure why you even brought that up.

    Go ahead and google "bullying laws", and you'll see that the government is doing, quite a bit to address this problem. If outside forces like bullying and discrimination are compromising your personal freedom, then a government that is committed to preserving personal freedoms should act.
  21. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Of course the government shouldn't be able to tell you that you need to eat avacados instead of brownies.
    How do we know?

    My premise is that the government is right to act if doing so prevents you from making a decision that you would otherwise not make if you were fully informed.
    Does the government have information the private sector does not?

    Perpetuating healthy guidelines and regulating the supply chain of perishable products are examples of the government enhancing individual freedoms.
    What if the private sector does this even better?

    In your world, butchers can sell you tainted meat
    The butcher has a self-interest to not sell you tainted meat and you have a self-interest in not buying tainted meat. Given variation in budget constraints and preferences among people, some producers will pay less (or more) to keep quality of meat and some consumers will pay less (or more). Over time (but pretty quickly), the sellers that buyers want are the sellers they buy from. This ultimately derives from people having freedom to do as they please and businesses only generating profits by pleasing customers.

    Contrast this to a bureaucracy that regulates meat standards. They do not receive funds from freely choosing consumers and they do not risk bankruptcy from low competence. They have less information due to separation from individual circumstances and due to scale, among others.

    In our real world, when there is a tainted food outbreak, the companies themselves take action more swiftly and with greater magnitude than bureaucracy because the companies have skin in the game. The amount of quality control that happens freely in the market might be 99% more than the amount that emerges from government. We see this virtually everywhere. I walk into a place of business and can point out uncountable amounts of quality control measures the firms themselves take that the government has nothing to do with.
  22. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How do we know?
    The same way know to forcefully institutionalize someone choosing to eat sheet-rock screws. As I explained to spoon, I'm really not explicitly informed on teh exact letter of the law in these cases, but I certainly believe that precedents exist that illustrate whereabouts the line is.

    Maybe it has to do with frequency, maybe it has to do with severity. Maybe the line is based on something else entirely. Maybe your choice to eat a brownie is ok because there is no risk unless you eat brownies to excess. And if you reach that point, then it's likely you have an eating disorder. You have a dysfunction that is compromising your personal freedom, and I can certainly imagine scenarios where the government could compel someone to seek treatment for the dysfunction. Though in that case, I wouldn't call the government's action invasive or oppressive. By compelling you to seek treatment, they are helping you exercise your personal freedom more effectively. And that's ok.

    Can this be abused? Sure. Try to buy a 32oz soda in New York City. But any government function can theoretically be abused. Privatization is not the answer

    Does the government have information the private sector does not?
    The government has information that consumers might not.

    What if the private sector does this even better?
    It can't

    I assume you're referring to trade organizations and various "certifications" that exist within industries. I think you're saying that a private conglomerate of participating meat vendors could come up with some kind of entity that dictates standards. Meat vendors could advertise their participation in such an entity, and that could give consumers peace of mind when buying their products.

    Sure, sounds fine. But how does a consumer verify the integrity of that regulatory entity? You see a piece of meat and it says "Meat Council Approved" on the package. How does the consumer know what the Meat Council is? How does the consumer know what their standards and practices are? What's stopping a shady non-member meat vendor from having some stickers printed up saying "Approved by the Council of Meat"? How does the consumer know that the Council of Meat is shady and the Meat Council is not?

    Now let's say you actually have an answer for all of that and can explain how a consumer could easily recognize the difference and that market forces would categorically eliminate exploitation. Now the consumer has to buy milk. Then bread. Then apples. Then gasoline. Also a car, house, dry cleaning, birthday cake and sheetrock screws.

    Do you expect the consumer to be informed as to the integrity of private regulators within the milk, bread, apple, gasoline, auto, construction, dry cleaning, cake, and metal hardware industries?

    Or is it more practical, safer, and more effective if there is a single entity that consumers can turn to in every case. And that entity exists without a profit motive, but with skin in the game in the form of a mandate to protect and enhance personal freedom.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 12-21-2017 at 02:54 PM.
  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The government has information that consumers might not.
    This goes both ways if we're talking individual consumers. If we're talking private sector, the only information it doesn't have that the government has is government secrets. And there is a ton of information that the private sector has that government doesn't.

    I assume you're referring to trade organizations and various "certifications" that exist within industries. I think you're saying that a private conglomerate of participating meat vendors could come up with some kind of entity that dictates standards. Meat vendors could advertise their participation in such an entity, and that could give consumers peace of mind when buying their products.

    Sure, sounds fine. But how does a consumer verify the integrity of that regulatory entity? You see a piece of meat and it says "Meat Council Approved" on the package. How does the consumer know what the Meat Council is? How does the consumer know what their standards and practices are? What's stopping a shady non-member meat vendor from having some stickers printed up saying "Approved by the Council of Meat"? How does the consumer know that the Council of Meat is shady and the Meat Council is not?

    Now let's say you actually have an answer for all of that and can explain how a consumer could easily recognize the difference and that market forces would categorically eliminate exploitation. Now the consumer has to buy milk. Then bread. Then apples. Then gasoline. Also a car, house, dry cleaning, birthday cake and sheetrock screws.

    Do you expect the consumer to be informed as to the integrity of private regulators within the milk, bread, apple, gasoline, auto, construction, dry cleaning, cake, and metal hardware industries?
    The private sector already quality controls like this and other ways.

    Or is it more practical, safer, and more effective if there is a single entity that consumers can turn to in every case.
    This gets to the original question of the OP. Why do you think the government is more efficient at this than the private sector?

    And that entity exists without a profit motive, but with skin in the game in the form of a mandate to protect and enhance personal freedom.
    Skin in the game is when somebody receives the benefit or the consequences of his actions. Being given a mandate doesn't mean you have skin in the game unless you bear the cost of success or failure of achieving that mandate. As we see regularly, government and bureaucrats have skin in the game in a very weak form at best.
  24. #99
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I sense some closeted-rage there spoon. It's ok to be gay. Come on out.
    I'm not closeted. What kind of fucking bigot are you?

    Furthermore, I'm not sure why you've suddenly taken up the cause of transexual depression, but I guess I'll play along.
    I'm sure from your privileged ivory tower than it's something you'll need to "play along" with.

    If you can demonstrate, incontrovertibly, that transexual behavior actually raises the risk of suicide to a level that cannot be ignored by anyone using common sense and sound judgement, then it might be something to look into.
    Oh okay, so the treatment of transexual PEOPLE, not "behavior" as you've so ridiculously asserted, is something that can be ignored by common sense. Got it.

    But you don't see people. You see "behavior." It's no wonder you have no fucking clue.

    If you can show me that people choose a transexual lifestyle despite ominous risks to their existence
    Yeah I'm sure that people just choose to be transexual. You probably think people choose to be gay.

    What you're displaying right here, right now is the reason why LGBT folks like myself (even though you want to go on some "closested rage" hate speech that you think is some kind of cute insult) are at a much higher risk of suicide.

    I don't need the government coming in and trying to force my preferences to what they think is "better for me." What myself and millions of Americans need is for people like you to stop thinking that you know better of what other people need than they know for their fucking selves.

    What seems to be happening is that bullying and societal pressures are driving people toward drastic behaviors. That's the cause of the suicides, not the actual transexual-ism.
    If you believe that, then maybe you should STOP BULLYING PEOPLE. But instead, you think the government should step in and tell gay or transexual or bisexual people to start "acting normal" since that's what's best for them, and you think the government has the right to force people to do what you think they should do because you think you know what's best. That matches up perfectly with your bullying rhetoric and weak attempts at gay-bashing jokes about being in the closet and suicide.

    Do you know why so many LGBT people stay closeted? Because of assholes who think that it's great to bully them with jokes like yours that make them feel like they have no worth as a human being. People like you with your bigoted jokes are EXACTLY why there is fear about gay concentration camps in this country in 2017 (soon to be 2018) based EXACTLY on the type of communist rhetoric you're spewing left, right and center about why the government should step in and force you to act the way they think you should act. That's EXACTLY what gay concentration camps look like, and that's EXACTLY the attitude that leads to them.

    I'm sorry that you apparently don't know what it's like for your mere existence to put a constant target on your back from people who think they know how to "fix you" and that they know what's better for you than you know for yourself. If you did, you might think twice about making cracks about fucking suicide and coming out of the closet.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-21-2017 at 03:19 PM.
  25. #100
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Alright, I'm bored with this for now. Being an S-J-dub for an afternoon was a lot of fun though (speaking to the approach, not the content). They really are fucking insane.

    Government getting heavily into personal choice is the precursor to communism.

    Have fun.

    Edit: Since it wasn't clear enough to one or two people in particular, I'd like to clarify that I was trolling. I based it on an actual experience I had regarding Obamacare where I was told a lot of the types of things I said above. If that person was just fucking with me, then I guess it was trolling inception.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-21-2017 at 07:51 PM.
  26. #101
    ...post duplicated for some reason
    Last edited by BananaStand; 12-21-2017 at 04:19 PM.
  27. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I'm not closeted. What kind of fucking bigot are you?
    Whatever the cause, there's clearly a self-deprecating rage boiling inside of you.

    I'm sure from your privileged ivory tower than it's something you'll need to "play along" with.
    I'm privileged because I'm straight and cis? What does that make you? Afflicted?

    Oh okay, so the treatment of transexual PEOPLE, not "behavior" as you've so ridiculously asserted, is something that can be ignored by common sense. Got it.

    But you don't see people. You see "behavior." It's no wonder you have no fucking clue.
    Dude everything in that paragraph was meant to be a ridiculous hypothetical that would demonstrate the circumstances where gov't intervention might be necessary. Obviously you missed the follow up sentence that says "None of this seems to be happening", because, as I said, it's all a ridiculous hypothetical.

    Yeah I'm sure that people just choose to be transexual. You probably think people choose to be gay.
    I don't, but I also don't think the answer is that black and white. Sexual preference may not be a choice, but lifestyle certainly is. I actually have a little bit of a problem with the "loud and proud" types.

    What you're displaying right here, right now is the reason why LGBT folks like myself are at a much higher risk of suicide.
    If cyberbullying causes suicide, and most people prefer not to die, then that means that the cyber-bullying is compromising individual freedom, and should compel government action. Again, google "bullying laws", and bathe yourself in reassurance that the government is on your side.

    I don't need the government coming in and trying to force my preferences to what they think is "better for me." What myself and millions of Americans need is for people like you to stop thinking that you know better of what other people need than they know for their fucking selves.
    None of this seems to be in response to ANYTHING I said. I never suggested the government should try and force your preferences. I said the government should take action against outside forces that exploit your preferences in order to undermine your individual freedom. We kind of agree, so why so pissy?

    If you believe that, then maybe you should STOP BULLYING PEOPLE. But instead, you think the government should step in and tell gay or transexual or bisexual people to start "acting normal" since that's what's best for them, and you think the government has the right to force people to do what you think they should do because you think you know what's best. That matches up perfectly with your bullying rhetoric and weak attempts at gay-bashing jokes about being in the closet and suicide.
    I never suggested the government should do any of that.

    Do you know why so many LGBT people stay closeted?
    Honestly, I think it's at least partially due to modesty. I mean, when you introduce yourself as a gay person, what you're doing is making a first impression by stating what kind of sex you like.

    I once checked out a group on meetup for a hike in the mountains. The name of the group was "Gay Adventures" or something like that. And while I'm sure all are welcome and the group is very inclusive...it's a little off putting to put that in the title. I mean, all I want to do is find some folks to hike with, and the very first thing they tell me about the group is "Hey, just so you know, we're all into butt-fucking".

    Why is that even relevant? Why introduce yourself by revealing intimate personal details about your sex life? I don't think it's homophobic to be a little put-off by that kind of behavior.

    Because of assholes who think that it's great to bully them with jokes like yours that make them feel like they have no worth as a human being. People like you with your bigoted jokes are EXACTLY why there is fear about gay concentration camps in this country in 2017 (soon to be 2018) based EXACTLY on the type of communist rhetoric you're spewing left, right and center about why the government should step in and force you to act the way they think you should act. That's EXACTLY what gay concentration camps look like, and that's EXACTLY the attitude that leads to them
    Honestly dude, or whatever you are, none of this aligns with what I said. If you're offended, it's because you're an oversensitive drama queen. Go run and tell the government sissy
  28. #103
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO

    I thought spoon was in a polygamous relationship.
    ... none of my business, but interesting to know spoon identifies as LGBT, and not LGBTQA... or am I simply showing my SJW associations by differentiating these terms?
  29. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This goes both ways if we're talking individual consumers. If we're talking private sector, the only information it doesn't have that the government has is government secrets. And there is a ton of information that the private sector has that government doesn't..
    Do consumers have that information? Do you trust the private sector to share that information with you? How do you know that the the private sector is employing standards and practices that meet your individual requirements.

    Look up "Tylenol deaths 1982". You'll find articles proclaiming a silver lining to that incident in that it forced drug manufacturers to improve their processes and implement more consumer protections.

    But none of that happened until some kids died. Don't you think it would be better if the government insisted on those improved procedures in the first place?

    The private sector already quality controls like this and other ways.
    Only when they really have to. The 1982 incident wasnt' just tylenol. It inspired MANY copycat incidents across the entire industry. Are you confident that every single firm in the industry implemented the proper procedures to protect consumers from harm?

    This gets to the original question of the OP. Why do you think the government is more efficient at this than the private sector?
    Centralization.

    Skin in the game is when somebody receives the benefit or the consequences of his actions. Being given a mandate doesn't mean you have skin in the game unless you bear the cost of success or failure of achieving that mandate. As we see regularly, government and bureaucrats have skin in the game in a very weak form at best.
    Ummmm, what about democracy. If the gov't fails it's mandate....usually re-elections are tough.
  30. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post

    I thought spoon was in a polygamous relationship.
    ... none of my business, but interesting to know spoon identifies as LGBT, and not LGBTQA... or am I simply showing my SJW associations by differentiating these terms?
    You shouldn't interrupt him while he's arguing with his alt.
  31. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I don't, but I also don't think the answer is that black and white. Sexual preference may not be a choice, but lifestyle certainly is. I actually have a little bit of a problem with the "loud and proud" types.
    I would say it's a bit silly to be 'proud' of an orientation you didn't choose, but it's also silly to be ashamed of it. The loud and proud types I think are asserting their right to sexual freedom to others who feel they should be ashamed. It's a "fu" to those people imo.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Honestly, I think it's at least partially due to modesty. I mean, when you introduce yourself as a gay person, what you're doing is making a first impression by stating what kind of sex you like.
    Do a lot of people do that in your world? I've never had someone come to me and say 'Hello, I'm gay'.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I once checked out a group on meetup for a hike in the mountains. The name of the group was "Gay Adventures" or something like that. And while I'm sure all are welcome and the group is very inclusive...it's a little off putting to put that in the title. I mean, all I want to do is find some folks to hike with, and the very first thing they tell me about the group is "Hey, just so you know, we're all into butt-fucking".
    I'm sure those were their exact words....

    But really, what they're trying to do is help you understand what they're about so you don't come over a ridge and see two men kissing or holding hands or whatever and then feel like you've been duped into thinking it was just a group of happy guys who like to hike. They're in effect saying "If you're not comfortable with gay people, maybe this isn't the place for you."
  32. #107
    If your google is telling you about "gay adventures hiking" when you're just trying to find a group to go hiking with I think you're in denial about some things & need to be more discrete with your browsing history.
  33. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Do consumers have that information? Do you trust the private sector to share that information with you? How do you know that the the private sector is employing standards and practices that meet your individual requirements.
    Consumers make up the private sector. When we speak in aggregates (which we are), the private sector adjusts to all available information.

    Look up "Tylenol deaths 1982". You'll find articles proclaiming a silver lining to that incident in that it forced drug manufacturers to improve their processes and implement more consumer protections.

    But none of that happened until some kids died.
    This is because new information emerged that changed valuation.

    Don't you think it would be better if the government insisted on those improved procedures in the first place?
    Sure, it would be better if it wasn't wishful thinking. How can a government adjust for something it doesn't know to adjust for in the first place?

    Only when they really have to. The 1982 incident wasnt' just tylenol. It inspired MANY copycat incidents across the entire industry. Are you confident that every single firm in the industry implemented the proper procedures to protect consumers from harm?
    My previous explanation of variation in values and budgets means that I do not think every firm does this, because producers and consumers derive marginal benefits differently. Some more highly value less stringent quality and others more highly value more stringent quality.

    Regarding "proper procedure", what is that? How do you know if something is proper unless by what people freely choose?

    Centralization.
    How does that provide for more efficiency of allocating resources to food safety? We shouldn't ignore the opportunity costs and how people often value other things more than food safety with the same funds/effort, but let's do it anyways and just focus on food safety alone.

    Ummmm, what about democracy. If the gov't fails it's mandate....usually re-elections are tough.
    Like I said, the skin in the game is very weak. There isn't a total absence of skin in the game in government, though it is quite weak.
  34. #109
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post

    I thought spoon was in a polygamous relationship.
    ... none of my business, but interesting to know spoon identifies as LGBT, and not LGBTQA... or am I simply showing my SJW associations by differentiating these terms?
    I am, and I do, and I have no idea, but none of that is particularly important.

    I added an edit to post #100 since I thought I was clear there about it just being me carrying on fucking with people, but apparently it wasn't lol. I hold many of (but not all of) the same opinions that Banana expressed in his[?] replies.

    I think Banana may have outed himself as being homophobic and transphobic as fuck, but I don't really care either way since he's just a random on the Internet afaik.

    To clarify my position, I'm very much against virtually any expansion of government, especially when it includes trying to regulate individual choices about what's good or bad for the self.
  35. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I think Banana may have outed himself as being homophobic and transphobic as fuck, but I don't really care either way since he's just a random on the Internet afaik.
    alt confirmed.
  36. #111
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    alt confirmed.
    Psh, I've been posting tranny porn on FTR since before the UIGEA.
  37. #112
    all i remember is ipoq or whatever his name was had an avatar or something of linetrap (bailey jay) and we all was like hot damn.

    it's pretty sad when a dude is more femininely hot than most women.
  38. #113
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    all i remember is ipoq or whatever his name was had an avatar or something of linetrap (bailey jay) and we all was like hot damn.

    it's pretty sad when a dude is more femininely hot than most women.
    Testosterone levels are down, on average, in men more than any point in history. Add that to women, on average, being a bunch of lard asses more than any point in history, and it's the perfect time for that sort of thing.

    There's also the fact that it's more acceptable to go down that route at any point in history and how society glorifies it while simultaneously shaming masculinity, so there are a lot of forces at work here.

    I don't really mind. It's less competition for men who are about their shit to smash ass left, right and center.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-21-2017 at 10:45 PM.
  39. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I would say it's a bit silly to be 'proud' of an orientation you didn't choose, but it's also silly to be ashamed of it. The loud and proud types I think are asserting their right to sexual freedom to others who feel they should be ashamed. It's a "fu" to those people imo.
    When I said "loud and proud" types, I meant the types who express themselves in ways that set gay people back. Like if you wanna have a parade to say we're here, we're queer, get used to it, then fine. But if I look at that parade and I see a half naked freak with a dildo strapped to his head, then I'm going to have much less of an open mind.

    But really, what they're trying to do is help you understand what they're about so you don't come over a ridge and see two men kissing or holding hands or whatever and then feel like you've been duped into thinking it was just a group of happy guys who like to hike. They're in effect saying "If you're not comfortable with gay people, maybe this isn't the place for you."
    That sounds like you're just enabling discrimination.
  40. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    If your google is telling you about "gay adventures hiking" when you're just trying to find a group to go hiking with I think you're in denial about some things & need to be more discrete with your browsing history.
    It was a public invitation posted on Meetup.com. That's why it's kind of eyebrow raising. Like, if it's just a group of people hiking, why does it matter if anyone is gay? If that's NOT what it is, then say so, and don't invite the whole fucking world!
  41. #116
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I am, and I do, and I have no idea, but none of that is particularly important.
    Accepting the lack of importance,
    the QA tacked on the end of LGBTQA is "Queer Advocate," and is meant to be inclusive to non-LGBT people who aren't jerks to LGBT people (as far as I understand... it could be a local thing).
  42. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I hold many of (but not all of) the same opinions that Banana expressed in his[?] replies.
    I've been told they aren't opinions, but fallacies.

    I think Banana may have outed himself as being homophobic and transphobic as fuck,
    Definitely not.

    To clarify my position, I'm very much against virtually any expansion of government, especially when it includes trying to regulate individual choices about what's good or bad for the self.
    I mostly agree, the only caveat is when the self is making choices against its own stated agenda. Like if your agenda is to live, and not die. Then taking a potentially deadly drug is something you would choose not to do. If you choose to do it anyway, then something has compromised your personal freedom. And that deserves attention.
  43. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    But if ... I see a half naked freak with a dildo strapped to his head, then I'm going to have much less of an open mind.
    I agree that kind of 'openness' lacks a certain dignity but if you don't like it, then don't look at it. It's not like the guy is doing it on your front lawn.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That sounds like you're just enabling discrimination.
    I'm just saying if they didn't tell you they were gay you might be in for a shock. So telling you they're gay is a courtesy to you. I for one would prefer they say that because I'd rather not be the guy coming over a ridge and seeing two guys going at it, because I find that disgusting. If that makes me homophobic, fine, but at least they're being up front about it so I can't complain.
  44. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I'm just saying if they didn't tell you they were gay you might be in for a shock. So telling you they're gay is a courtesy to you. I for one would prefer they say that because I'd rather not be the guy coming over a ridge and seeing two guys going at it, because I find that disgusting. If that makes me homophobic, fine, but at least they're being up front about it so I can't complain.
    So if you joined up with an outdoor group on Meetup.com, went out for a hike, came over a ridge, and saw two straight people going at it......that's ok?

    This is kind of my point. The only gay thing about gay people is the gay stuff they do in private with other gays. Other than that, they're just regular people. This is why I have a problem with the phrase "identify as gay". Unless you're some kind of workaholic porn star, your life is probably a lot more than what kind of sex you have. So why is your sexual preference the defining feature of your "identity"

    If they wanna hold hands, or sneak off into the woods for a smooch session, why should that bother anyone? Why does one need to be warned?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 12-22-2017 at 10:04 AM.
  45. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So if you joined up with an outdoor group on Meetup.com, went out for a hike, came over a ridge, and saw two straight people going at it......that's ok?
    Did you even read what I said?


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So why is your sexual preference the defining feature of your "identity"
    Who says it is the defining feature of their identity? But is still a part of your identity, and if someone wants to reveal that they're gay or they're straight or they're something else, why do you care? If you don't want to know, maybe ask them in advance not to tell you.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If they wanna hold hands, or sneak off into the woods for a smooch session, why should that bother anyone? Why does one need to be warned?
    It shouldn't bother anyone but it does bother some people. So like i said three times now, maybe they're saying in effect 'if this bothers you, you've been warned'.

    Really, what is your objection to that? You think the information is irrelevant, so it's wasting three seconds of your life to process it?
  46. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Did you even read what I said?
    Yeah. Maybe I misunderstood "going at it". If we're talking gratuitous, overt, sexual displays....that really isn't appropriate for gay people or straight people. If we're talking casual hand-holding and familiar affection, like the stuff that happens in parks, restaurants, and other public spaces every single day then who the fuck cares. Why does anyone need to be warned about that?

    If we're gonna do that, why not just put up a sign in every public space that says "WARNING: Gay people are allowed here" just so the homophobes don't have to be surprised when they see Ethan and Josh holding hands while shopping for throw pillows.

    Who says it is the defining feature of their identity?
    They do. If I have no plans to buttfuck with a guy.....why would I ever need to know that he's gay? I'm not saying he has to hide it. I work with a gay guy. The first year and a half we worked together, I had no idea he was gay. I only found out because one day we were talking and he mentioned something about his "husband". So then the light bulb went off and I though "oh, I guess he's gay". And it affected our interaction 0%.

    That's HUGELY different than if he had just introduced himself as "the gay quality control guy"

    See what i mean?

    It shouldn't bother anyone but it does bother some people. So like i said three times now, maybe they're saying in effect 'if this bothers you, you've been warned'.
    And like I've said to you, this enables discrimination. You're basically offering someone a mechanism to exercise prejudice.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 12-22-2017 at 10:59 AM.
  47. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    And like I've said to you, this enables discrimination. You're basically offering someone a mechanism to exercise prejudice.
    I see what you're saying, but this is a poor choice of words because it implies the gay person revealing their sexual identity is somehow 'asking for it'.

    Perhaps what you mean is 'opens them up to discrimination, and so is not in their best interests.' I guess you'd have to ask them what the cost-benefit of that is.
  48. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I see what you're saying, but this is a poor choice of words because it implies the gay person revealing their sexual identity is somehow 'asking for it'.
    No, that's not what 'enabled' means at all.

    Look, all I'm asking is why does a group of hikers who happen to be gay have to identify themselves as 'Gay Hikers'. You don't see other groups labeling themselves that way. You don't see "Leather Fetishist Hikers". You don't see "Marine Biologist Hikers". You don't see "Poker Forum Shitpost Hikers". I just don't see why that label is relevant if it's not a necessary aspect of participation.

    Frankly I find it hard to stomach any kind of group, gay or straight, that socializes around their sexual preferences. I think that just lacks modesty, and I don't think it's homophobic to be put-off by that.
  49. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No, that's not what 'enabled' means at all.
    I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Ok, maybe I am. "Enable" has a negative connotation because one of its meanings is to 'give another authority to do x' whereas another is its use in the context of people carrying out bad behaviour, implying that the 'enabler' is partly responsible for said behaviour - e.g., "enabling an alcoholic to drink".

    If you didn't mean any of those things by using the word 'enable', then ok. But in that case, you would be better off choosing a word or phrase that lacks any such connotations.



    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Look, all I'm asking is why does a group of hikers who happen to be gay have to identify themselves as 'Gay Hikers'. You don't see other groups labeling themselves that way. You don't see "Leather Fetishist Hikers". You don't see "Marine Biologist Hikers". You don't see "Poker Forum Shitpost Hikers". I just don't see why that label is relevant if it's not a necessary aspect of participation.

    Frankly I find it hard to stomach any kind of group, gay or straight, that socializes around their sexual preferences. I think that just lacks modesty, and I don't think it's homophobic to be put-off by that.
    If that's all you're saying then fine I probably agree. It just isn't high up on the list of things that annoy me, that's all.
  50. #125
    Y'all niggas just fagged this thread right up, huh?
  51. #126
    Correction: Y'all Persons of Color just LGBTQWOP'd this thread right up, huh?
  52. #127
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The fundamental assumption of economics is that people want more happiness. The fundamental question is, "how can resources that affect happiness be most efficiently allocated?" I argue that if somebody has an idea about how to improve the human world, it needs to be a proposal that more efficiently allocates resources that affect happiness.
    Wasn't there a psychological study that shows that basic happiness in a person stabalizes over time? Split twins by losing a leg and winning a lottery, and they're basically just as happy 7 years on? Seems to me like the fundamental aspect of economics is to understand how the ruthless and unending desire to expand, devour, and control works in sophisticates like us people. Same as cancer and same as embryo growth.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  53. #128
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    People would be happier if they didn't blow all of their fucking money on microtransactions. Therefore, the government should make microtransactions illegal.
    Wasn't there a psychological study that showed that peoples basic happiness is stable over time?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  54. #129
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Yep. My original response was satire, fwiw, in case that wasn't obvious. That's exactly the kind of thinking that non-thinking people have.
    I was just acting retarded, too.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  55. #130
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Let's say there are two things people want
    What do you want, wuf?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  56. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Wasn't there a psychological study that shows that basic happiness in a person stabalizes over time? Split twins by losing a leg and winning a lottery, and they're basically just as happy 7 years on?
    These are most likely two different ways of defining happiness. Economics uses the term "utility", which is defined best as something like happiness or preferences. An assumption is that when somebody wants Thing A more than Thing B, it's because Thing A -- at least in their own subjective mind -- makes them happier. This is a different concept than the grand "are you happy" type of happiness.

    Seems to me like the fundamental aspect of economics is to understand how the ruthless and unending desire to expand, devour, and control works in sophisticates like us people.
    Well, yeah, you got it. In a dysphemistic way.

    The first premise of economics is that people have unlimited wants in a world of limited resources. Economics attempts to describe how resources are allocated in that world of unlimited wants and constrained resources.
  57. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    What do you want, wuf?
    For all your dreams to come true.
  58. #133
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    For all your dreams to come true.
    Most of them already have. Why desire more than I have?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  59. #134
    Because Lao Tzu demands it?
  60. #135
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Well, yeah, you got it
    That was p masterclass, if i do say so myself.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  61. #136
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Well as many games aside, what do you want for Christmas?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  62. #137
    A gobby from Portia Doubleday.
  63. #138
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Maybe next Christmas
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  64. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Correction: Y'all Persons of Color just LGBTQWOP'd this thread right up, huh?
    I find your use of this acronym offensive. Bisexual implies only two genders.

    Also, "persons of ethnicity" is safer ground, to avoid discriminating against albino coloureds.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Maybe next Christmas
    All right, I guess we'll just settle for Krysten Ritter this Christmas.
  66. #141
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Wasn't there a psychological study that shows that basic happiness in a person stabalizes over time? Split twins by losing a leg and winning a lottery, and they're basically just as happy 7 years on? Seems to me like the fundamental aspect of economics is to understand how the ruthless and unending desire to expand, devour, and control works in sophisticates like us people. Same as cancer and same as embryo growth.
    It's a common thing. There's a good speech Don gives in Mad Men about it when he sets up a meeting with Dow, I think it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I find your use of this acronym offensive. Bisexual implies only two genders.

    Also, "persons of ethnicity" is safer ground, to avoid discriminating against albino coloureds.
    Yeah, the whole thing is ridiculous, but it is what it is at this point.
  67. #142
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    The same line of thinking that the government should be able to make it illegal to not wear a seat belt is the same line of thinking that led to the government making it illegal to get fucked in the ass in the privacy of your own home. It's trying to regulate personal choice based on irrational lines of thought, much like the almighty war on drugs has been doing for decades to great acclaim, when the fact of the matter is that the government has no business doing it in the first place.

    I don't think people should do drugs. I think everyone who does heroin on a regular basis should be shot in the fucking head. But it's not something the government should make illegal.

    Yes, it's harmful to the person, on average, not to wear a seat belt. Yes, it's harmful to the person, on average, to do heroin.

    It's called thinning the fucking herd.

    Don't forget that I'm a fucking redneck. Rednecks don't like the government. This kind of shit is why. The government has no fucking business whatsoever trying to legislate personal choice.

    If you're in favor of a law against not wearing your seat belt, then you're in favor of a law that makes abortion illegal. It's the same fucking principle. What happened to "My body, my choice" that these baby killing liberal fucks always chant?

    To me it sounds like you are just completely against a conservative (republican?) government. Not sure why you throw "baby killing liberal fucks" in there, as the things you are describing as being against pretty much all stem from conservative fucks instead, particularly the religious right
    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
  68. #143
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    To me it sounds like you are just completely against a conservative (republican?) government. Not sure why you throw "baby killing liberal fucks" in there, as the things you are describing as being against pretty much all stem from conservative fucks instead, particularly the religious right
    That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler would say. - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/40193

    See post #109 to see what you missed. It'll make a lot more sense.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 12-23-2017 at 02:54 PM.
  69. #144
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    That sounds suspiciously like something Hitler would say.
    LOL spoon, really? Reductio ad hitlerum so quickly?


    Hahahahaha
    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
  70. #145
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    LOL spoon, really? Reductio ad hitlerum so quickly?


    Hahahahaha
    Check my edit, I hit submit too quickly. It was in reference to a leaked John Podesta email.
  71. #146
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    To me it sounds like you are just completely against a conservative (republican?) government.
    For a more serious response to this, in a few short bullet points:

    1. There are so many different types of conservatives, even just within the United States, many of which disagree with each other on major issues, that it's very difficult to actually be completely against a "conservative" government in the policy sense. You'd have to specify which type of conservative (Wikipedia has a fun list if you're into that sort of thing) to have a concrete place to start with something like that. For reference, I disagree with the religious right on a great many things, even though I am myself considered a conservative by any reasonable measure. I also disagree with neoconservatives to a strong degree.

    2. The point I was making with my SJW impression in those 2-3 posts somewhere above is that increased government power over personal choice is the exact kind of thing that would lead to something like a gay concentration camp. If you don't think that's the kind of thing our government is capable of, don't forget that we were putting people in concentration camps on US soil only 75 years ago.

    3. I identify as a Trump Conservative for the time being. Generally speaking, that means a fiscally conservative, socially moderate-to-liberal, nationalist capitalist with strong subjective (as opposed to orthodox) Objectivist leanings.
  72. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    If you don't think that's the kind of thing our government is capable of, don't forget that we were putting people in concentration camps on US soil only 75 years ago
    Maybe find out what actually happened 75 years ago before you get worked up about this as a possibility.
  73. #148
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Maybe find out what actually happened 75 years ago before you get worked up about this as a possibility.
    You're going to have to do better than that to troll me.

    For anyone interested in actual reading, the references and notes are excellent here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...nese_Americans
  74. #149
    That wiki page seems to be missing some salient facts. There was great concern at the time that Japanese immigrants had come to America with the intention of living under cover until the Emperor commanded them to rise up against their hosts. People were worried that tomato farmers in San Diego were actually Japanese soldiers in disguise.

    You might call that crazy.....if it hadn't JUST HAPPENED in the Phillipines. And it was fucking brutal. One day a guy is a mild mannered immigrant shopkeeper. The next day he's stabbing the elderly and burning baby cribs. The Phillipines' president's personal masseuse was actually a major in the Japanese army.

    I can't say what I would have done, or what would have been right. But it's clear to me that some human beings were charged with an absolutely impossible choice. They KNEW the Japanese employed this tactic, and they KNEW how terrible the consequences.

    I'm not about to defend the practice of internment camps. But I'm not about to denounce the policymakers as illogical racists.

    What I see there is an impossible choice in the face of a fearsome menace.

    I don't think there's the same ominous threat coming from gays. If you find any correlation...you're retarded. Merry Christmas
  75. #150
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    And it was still American citizens being put into concentration camps on US soil, no matter how you want to try to spin it.

Posting Permissions

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