mojo can be my science guy.
poop, I'll think of something for you.
Printable View
mojo can be my science guy.
poop, I'll think of something for you.
Fine, but only if I can use the word "cunt" publicly, up to five times per week.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
*at least, and it's mandatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
My brother the alcoholic can deal with the opioid epidemic.
My first project will be to solve the ineffable mystery of why the universe lacks self-rolling spliffs, and self-brewing teas.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Worst case scenario is I find there isn't a white hole anywhere in the known universe which spews out freshly rolled spliffs and freshly brewed teas. In that case, I'll need to work in tandem with the Ministry of Engineering Excellent Shizwaz to corner the market on these things. Matter of fact, it's probably best to work in tandem with them throughout this endeavor.
... and I swear to Snoop Christ Dogg if your mom tries poking her charity nose into this, I'm defecting.
A government monopoly????Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Fuck this game, I'm out!
Self rolling spliffs and self brewing teas will make my friend redundant. Self buttering toast... that would be a good place to start.
Exceedingly simple, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pu...inklestein.jpg
I agree with this assessment too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
To further understand this I think we have to question the premises. For example, liberalism certainly does try to change things for the better, but that doesn't mean that change that emerges from liberalism is better. Conservatism recognizes this (at least in a way), and so tries to pull back from accidentally messing something up.
Nassim Taleb discusses this type of thing frequently. Traditions often exist because they have fitness. The small-c conservative view emphasizes that, not wanting to make changes that deteriorate fitness.
That doesn't mean the conservative view is always right. But it's damn sure right more often than the liberal view thinks it is, and it would be nice is the liberal view acknowledged that radical change (even change that can seem slow) can be VERY destructive for societies.
Unfortunately for Marx, the socialist Utopia deteriorates the production that is already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Scandinavia is an interesting case, and it's important to point out that they have some VERY good capitalism. They have some of the best capitalism, like in some ways their state policies are among the best in the world for businesses. Given this and given the ethic of the people and the relative peace, it doesn't surprise me that they do how they do. Granted, I predict that their lack of conservatism will over the long haul cause them real damage and we're already seeing it happen.
When government has power over a space, yes. When in the private sector, no. The equivalent of nepotism in the private space is actually pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hell, I'm working for my cousin. I got the job because he's my cousin, he offered me the job because I'm his cousin. The work relationship is mutually beneficial, yet the job is the type that would be less beneficial for each of us (and our customers) if we were not cousins.
It's when you have a monopoly on violence that is funded by mandated taxes that this type of thing turns bad.
I agree with this as it applies to the state. Nepotism in the state is basically taking something that there is already high demand for and giving it to a lower qualified person. Yet in the private sector, the demand is not exactly there since each firm loses revenues or goes bankrupt if they don't perform, so a company that hires lower qualified people for nepotism reasons suffers. Perhaps ironically, family and friends are often more productive sources of hires in the private sector since they carry lower risk to revenues for the firm. In government, they're also of lower risk to those with government power, but HIGHER risk to the people who provide revenues for the institution (taxpayers).Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
http://i.magaimg.net/img/2wwh.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Is nepotism ultimately against the American dream? I.e. does nepotism (not when implemented on small scales, but when endemic) promote dynastic entities, and limit freedom to change one's social status?
There was a Clinton or a Bush on the presidential ticket in every election between 1980 and 2004. If Barack Obama was white, a Clinton would have been on the ticket in 2008. As a consolation prize, a Clinton was named secretary of state for a while, then finally made the ticket again in 2016. If not for an orange-skinned media puppeteer, her opponent in 2016 would have been a Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I see two ways to look at this
First, we could say the answer to your question is "yes", since it seems that family name recognition and family money connections are closely tied to political success. Or, we could say the answer is "no" since there is a generally negative sentiment about government nepotism (there are even laws against it) yet that hasn't prevented the existence of dynastic entities. In other words, if nepotism causes dynasties, then curbing nepotism should stop dynasties. And that does not seem to be the case.
I'm leaning towards "yes".
This one is definitely a "no"Quote:
and limit freedom to change one's social status?
I once worked at a company where my boss was the owner's son. You can guess what my prospects were for upward mobility at that company. So I left and found another job. Easy game.
Nepotism would only limit freedoms if jobs were exceedingly scarce. Scarce enough where hiring managers have so few jobs to fill that nepotism governs huge portions of the market. But there are millions and millions of open jobs, and any given hiring manager probably doesn't have more than a dozen qualified relatives.
I'm not sure. One thing I will note is that the "American dream" includes making things better for your kids and their kids and their kids and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Like in a monarchy?
The desire to make things better for your offspring isn't unique.
It is important to note, however, that to have a robust economy, there needs to be enough freedom to help offspring and leave earned gains to offspring. Because, if that freedom goes away, so does a tremendous amount of the desire to produce.
If a line of reasoning can be used to justify anything, it's probably not a very good line of reasoning.
Certainly. I'm not using it to justify something so much as saying that a common criticism is unjustified.
It is unjustified to say political offices should be given to the most qualified people rather than relatives of the person in charge of that decision?
Those aren't mutually exclusive. Hires are along the lines of the perceived "most productive", and that is filtered through lens with a bunch of asymmetric information. This is why employers so often hire people they know. As experience and comfort with somebody increases, the risk (cost) to employing them decreases.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The issue of nepotism is not about nepotism. Nepotism is fantastic in the private sector because of how incentives are structured in that space. Yet it is awful in the public sector also for incentive structure reasons. Even with that in mind, nepotism probably can't be fixed in the public sector by trying to alter nepotism. You can probably only reduce the power of the public sector if you want to reduce the negative impact of nepotism.
That part is gobbledygook. You could have stopped at: Nepotism is bad in the public sector.Quote:
... nepotism probably can't be fixed in the public sector by trying to alter nepotism. You can probably only reduce the power of the public sector if you want to reduce the negative impact of nepotism.
It is when we investigate why it is bad in the public sector that we derive that trying to fix nepotism directly will likely be just as bad or worse. Nepotism exists because it lowers costs, yet in the public sector it causes some external costs that it doesn't in the private sector. Trying to solve for external costs is really hard without changing the underlying structure. Humans have very little success when trying to solve externalities without changing underlying structure that causes the incentives that cause those externalities.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
So are you in favour of Invanka the high level advisor or not?
I'm not a micro manager so I don't have an opinion on this specific instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
High level advisors don't fall under the rubric of micro-managing. I'm not asking if you think Trump's third cousin can work in a post office in North Dakota. Can his daughter serve in any useful capacity in the higher echelon of government that another female model couldn't?
Yes, of course. You think the people of South Korea would be equally as happy to see some random American model as they would be to see Ivanka? She's fantastically qualified for smiling and representing America abroad, she's pretty and she's the President's daugther. She's basically the American equivalent of a princess.Quote:
Can his daughter serve in any useful capacity in the higher echelon of government that another female model couldn't?
That's a qualification, and an outstanding one at that.
Is she was boot ugly, I'd probably cry nepotism.
Or if it were Tony Blair's daughter. I can see why you have a problem with it from that aspect. Just pure default "fuck you".
I get it. I hate Blair. But I don't hate Trump, so I'm not clouded by that hatred.
I'm saying I'm not a micro manager so I don't know. Generally speaking, I trust Trump's judgment more than any politicians, and since I don't have enough information, I put those two together and just trust that he knows what he's doing here. When stepping back and speaking in less concrete terms, I would prefer to reduce the power of government so that nepotism is less of a problem. Also I don't have a solution to the problem of nepotism other than that. Not allowing politicians to engage in nepotism hamstrings them within the domain which they are meant to act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So in brief, argument from authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Aren't there a lot of laws that hamstring politicians when they are meant to act? Should we really continue to burden our leaders with all those laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The contrast is between what is totally natural and what is not. Nepotism is the way of the world. It is the way normal people do normal things. It is efficient. It is low cost. If you make a law that doesn't allow politicians to use nepotism, you're going to significantly negatively impact the efficiency of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Let's address the problem instead. The problem is that unique corruption arises in the public sector because of how the public sector is paid. The solution is to change the way they are paid, which means shifting responsibilities to the private sector.
That law is already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Now the question becomes if you ignore that law in spirit if not in fact then what other laws are you happy to ignore?
Currently arguing with a flattard on youtube.
He tells me I cannot know the world is round without going into space and looking at it. He believes in a creator, so I told him that God told me in a dream how gravity works and how it makes things round.
Check fucking mate.
By that rationale, so is the pushback against nepotism.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I.e. it's also perfectly natural and what normal people do to point out that nepotism is bad policy which they disagree with.
I'm surprised that you'd make such an irrational argument, wuf. You used to say this was the only way to argue, but then stopped arguing that way for a while.
EDIT: It's totally unnatural to wear clothes, so what's that point even matter?
By the letter of the constitution, blacks count as 3/5 of a non-black when it comes to census time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Of course we ignore the letter of that law. It's a stupid law.
What other laws will we ignore?
Speed limits, littering laws, loitering laws, etc. Some states have state lotteries while also having banned gambling in the state.
(At least, some used to do that. I can't be bothered to check the current laws w.r.t. lottos and gambling.)
In summary, we ignore any law that we want to and it's not a slippery anything.
BullshitQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/2...rs-gun-control
All laws are meaningless. Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Reductio ad bananum from you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well, no, you basically said if you don't like a law you ignore it (apparently with no consequences?). That sounds to me as if you're saying all laws are meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I was explaining why the pushback is not as productive that one might wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You asked what other laws can be ignored and I gave you a list of common laws which are ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not speaking to individuals acting out against the societal norm. I'm talking about societal norms which are directly in opposition to standing laws.
The statement "some laws are meaningless" is not "all laws are meaningless," so yes, you're still using reductio ad bananum.
...using a tin foil argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Calling something natural or normal is no argument for why that thing is good or right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The nepotism law in government is not ignored, except implicitly by Trump. He's not even breaking it because Jarvanka aren't on any official payroll or working in any official capacity.
So what the rest of your post had to do with anything is beyond me.
We can call that 'non sequitur ad Mojo' if you like.
So why do you have such a problem then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Which is it? Is she working in the higher echelon's of government, doing important things? Or is she "not working any official capacity"
You can't have it both ways.
I answered a direct question of yours, so if there's a non sequitur at play it's the question you posed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you're now saying it was off topic, then I agree.
If this point can be ruled out as supporting your greater argument, then what new information do you have to motivate that position?
***
I agree with your first point. The entire conversation about nepotism is a non sequitur as of now. If Trump actually breaks an anti-nepotism law, then the conversation becomes relevant. As of now, it's another witch hunt.
He was either being sarcastic or schizophrenic. I'm not sure which yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's a problem because not being on the payroll is not stopping Jarvanka from sitting in on high level meetings and talking to high level people. If you need conflict of interest explained in a more detailed way I'm sure someone will be happy to do that. But I think you're just being argumentative for the sake of itQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You keep using the term "high level meetings" to describe a party planning session.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Give it up
Nice reductio ad bananumQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Kushner alone has met with several high level officials, and is being investigated by the WH ethics committee.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/p...oge/index.html
Not much different is Ivanka, though she's not under investigation yet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/p...ngs/index.html
Nice Movitus el GoalPostium de PoopitronQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Do you just read a CNN headline, get a boner, and then lose all cognitive function? You're acting like a dopey cartoon character who gets dumbstruck when he sees a pretty girl.Quote:
Kushner alone has met with several high level officials, and is being investigated by the WH ethics committee.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/p...oge/index.html
Nothing in that article references the Ethics Committee. It also specifically states that Office of Government ethics is NOT doing anything about this.
Again, did you even read what you linked? What meetings are cited in that article that could be described as "high level"?Quote:
Not much different is Ivanka, though she's not under investigation yet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/p...ngs/index.html
In other words, nothing is on the agenda for her meetings.Quote:
Women's economic empowerment is also on the agenda for her meetings
I answered your question, which you have called a non-sequitur, and now you're changing the subject away from ignoring laws to whether or not "it's a problem."Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I've made no stipulations over whether or not anything on this topic is a problem, only that the word "nepotism" is being thrown around a bit prematurely.
I didn't ask you if anything is a problem, but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me on this subject.
I'm curious, though.
Neither sitting nor talking are crimes. What is the problem you have?
Conflict of interest? What conflict which is particular to this case? - I mean, the fact that Trump, et al, have held on to their private business holdings is clearly conflict of interest (in my unprofessional opinion, maybe the legalese is more subtle than a kindergarten understanding, though), so I'm not suggesting there is no conflict.
I'm asking that, since we already know about that conflict, how does the current situation add to that conflict?
:/Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
"If I need XXX explained to me." when XXX hasn't even been mentioned in our conversation is rude at best, and hard to not take as you looking for an argument where none exists.
I'm answering your questions. I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me, just telling you what I think.
I.e. I'm not arguing, I'm conversing.
If you want an argument, then probably best to put me on your ignore list, 'cause I'm not here to change anyone's mind but my own.
But....but....David Pakman said....Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I guess the obvious conflicts of interest there needs spelling out for guys like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Kushner is a "senior advisor" to Trump. He meets with high level bankers. Shortly later, his family business gets loans around $500m. Is it really that difficult to imagine he could be using his position to influence those bankers? Is it that difficult to imagine him saying 'hey I got DJT's ear. If I tell him to pass some law that will make you tons of money he'll do it 'cause he's my father-in-law and what's he gonna do, let me go broke?'
Here's another riddle for you: Why does Kushner not have security clearance, and has had his temporary clearance downgraded? Is it maybe to do with all the shady shit like this bank stuff he's involved in? How about asking the Russian ambassador for a secret back-door channel to the Kremlin - seem fishy to you at all? Meeting the head of a Russian bank that was under sanctions? Not reporting business assets on his clearance form? Not reporting meetings with foreign officials on his clearance form? How about the meetings he's had with foreign officials behind the back of the National Security Advisor? Seem questionable?
Worst case scenario: he's a seething pile of fetid corruption using his position to personal advantage. Best case: he's just stupid and doesn't know any better. Either way, he doesn't belong in the WH. Either that or you just ignore the obvious problem with having the president's son-in-law and 'senior advisor' meet with foreign officials without telling the National Security Advisor, never mind being briefed on what he can and can't reveal to them.
I really don't know what you're talking about here. You seem to like to get into 'debates' with people where you pick some pedantic point about something they say and try to make an issue out of it while completely ignoring the bigger message they're trying to get across. Then you get all snarky when they find that annoying. Well sorry I'm not interested in your definition of whatever you fuck you were trying to argue about.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
So here you go: people ignore laws they don't like. I agree. Well stated, and completely irrelevant to the bigger question.
If they're so obvious, why do you need to "imagine" them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Correlation is not causation.Quote:
Kushner is a "senior advisor" to Trump. He meets with high level bankers. Shortly later, his family business gets loans around $500m.
Why are we "imagining" things? I thought the conflicts were "obvious"?Quote:
Is it really that difficult to imagine he could be using his position to influence those bankers?
This one actually is difficult to imagine because it would require us to live in a world where Presidents have totalitarian power over law-making.Quote:
Is it that difficult to imagine him saying 'hey I got DJT's ear. If I tell him to pass some law that will make you tons of money he'll do it 'cause he's my father-in-law and what's he gonna do, let me go broke?'
My understanding was that it's related to his frequent revisions to his disclosures of foreign contacts.Quote:
Here's another riddle for you: Why does Kushner not have security clearance, and has had his temporary clearance downgraded?
Sounds like more imaginationQuote:
Is it maybe to do with all the shady shit like this bank stuff he's involved in?
Actually noQuote:
How about asking the Russian ambassador for a secret back-door channel to the Kremlin - seem fishy to you at all?
Is that a crime?Quote:
Meeting the head of a Russian bank that was under sanctions?
Those are probably legit beefs. Though that hardly makes him a 'seething pile of fetid corruption'Quote:
Not reporting business assets on his clearance form? Not reporting meetings with foreign officials on his clearance form?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Source? Though I take issue with your use of "behind the back" phrasing. Has it been definitively determined that JK purposefully misrepresented or obfuscated something to the NSA?Quote:
How about the meetings he's had with foreign officials behind the back of the National Security Advisor? Seem questionable?
Probably somewhere in between. He probably doesn't know better, but he also seems like the kind of spoiled ass hole who just does what he wants and gets away with it.Quote:
Worst case scenario: he's a seething pile of fetid corruption using his position to personal advantage. Best case: he's just stupid and doesn't know any better.
You said yourself, he doesn't have a job there, and doesn't work in any official capacity. In other words, he has no power. So what he does in the white house really shouldn't bother you.Quote:
Either way, he doesn't belong in the WH.
I'm still not hearing the "obvious" problem. I just hear what you've "imagined"Quote:
Either that or you just ignore the obvious problem with having the president's son-in-law and 'senior advisor' meet with foreign officials without telling the National Security Advisor, never mind being briefed on what he can and can't reveal to them.
Forget it. Just the fact that you're try to dispute every sentence I wrote tells me all I need to know about where you're coming from (as if I didn't know already).Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm trying to learn from what you are telling me, but when the foundation of your point is nonsense, then I see no merit to the greater structure of your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Specifically:
You brought up the question of ignoring laws. I pointed out that it doesn't serve your argument because there are many examples of laws which we ignore.
If you think it's a bad point, then I agree, which is why I asked you, in the light of the fact that you've made a bad argument, what good argument would you prefer to make?
You then say sitting and talking cause a conflict of interest, which is a problem.
OK. What is the problem? How does the current sitting and talking exacerbate the already known conflict of interest?
I'm in no way trying to ignore your bigger message. I'm pointing out that the foundations of your big message have rot and decay in them, which undermines the authority of the message.
I'm not debating or arguing with you, I'm trying to understand you, out of respect for your intelligence and the personal search to understand old things in new ways.
I'm not saying a single poor argument means the big picture is bad. I'm just asking you to fill in a good argument where a poor one has been rooted out, otherwise, I cannot see your big picture as coherent.
I'm not saying it's incoherent, I'm saying I do not see the coherence. Whether or not I understand your big picture is all I'm saying, not that my understanding is somehow a mandate on what you should think or how you should behave. You do you. This is neither argument nor debate to me. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind but my own.
I feel you've back-slid into talking about individuals ignoring laws rather than societal norms which ignore laws. Am I wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Then are you recanting your statement that nepotism laws exist and ignoring them is bad?
Or are you making a point that it's more than simply ignoring the laws, that there are greater reasons that those particular laws are ignored and that those greater reasons do not apply to this case? (as wuf seems to be arguing. I'm not sure if wuf thinks nepotism is actually the goal or not.)
Or something else?
Untrue. I actually agreed with one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But if reading hurts your brain so much, I'll summarize:
Tell me why you aren't differentiating between something that is "obviously real" and something that you've only thus far imagined?
Can you make whatever point you have a bit more digestible please?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Actually it's reading garbage that hurts my brain. Which is why I'm much happier not reading long posts by you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm in no hurry. Read/reply if/when you have the time, but if all you read is the final paragraph, then that's fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Summary:
If your point is based on swiss cheese, then me pointing out the holes is perfectly relevant to your big picture.
If you can't explain why the holes in your foundation are not holes, then nothing resting on that foundation is shown to be robust.
Ok....apprently you have the verbal comprehension of a caveman. So I'll rephrase the question yet again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Oooga booga....Why Poop say fake thought is real?
Ok well let me summarize too: The argument is that Jarvanka shouldn't be involved in government because a) they're not qualified; and b) there's conflicts of interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Whether you find nepotism in and of itself problematic doesn't change a) or b) above; in fact it's the least important part of the whole argument.
Edit: please answer me before banana does so I can have an intelligent conversation about it.
Then why did you start this whole hullaballoo by complaining that Ivanka meeting with some South Korean lady violates anti-nepotism laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I posted a video and then I followed it up with this.
then this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It only got into the question of anti-nepotism later on, as per my assertion that that is a relatively minor part of my argument.
Everything bolded is a completely contrived and imagined falsehood. It's a ridiculous and erroneous inference that you made after getting your daily dose of libtardism from a geek demagogue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also the entire premise of that geek demagogue's video was to rant about violations of anti-nepotism laws. That complaint is featured prominently in the video.
So don't try and say that you weren't bitching about nepotism from the beginning.
If you want to say you were bitching about nepotism AND an idiotic lie about Ivanka pinch-hitting for Tillerson, then I agree.
Where's the mention of nepotism in any of my first few posts on the matter? I'm complaining about an unqualified person being given a job in the WH.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And we already went over all the stuff you bolded, it's not relevant to the question of what my argument was based on.
Your VERY FIRST post on the matter was a video where a faggoty demagogue stood on a soapbox in a dark obscure corner of the internet and ranted about NEPOTISMQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And let's be honest now.....you're trying to contrive outrage out of the nepotism thing now because you're trying to deflect from your own gullibility over the "sit in for Rex" narrative.
Right, AFTER the "Ivanka replaces Rex" argument turned out to be a steaming wet bucket of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
it WAS a relatively minor part of your argument. Then the juvenile, poorly researched, glib, and moronic argument of "Ivanka replaces Rex" got exposed for the biased liberal propaganda that it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Now nepotism is your ENTIRE argument.
Funny how it seemed believable given everything else that's gone on though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
In any case, yeah Pakman played fast and loose with the facts there. But his video does not speak for me: I just posted it. You don't get to assume I agree with everything in a video because I post it.