a weak, poor country can be defeated in myriad ways
china doesn't have to militarily invade siberia. it can just corrupt officials, pay russian legislators to make laws friendly to it, own all of the companies operating in siberia, flood the area with immigrants, etc
such that the map may say russia, but for all intents and purposes, it will be china's siberia
russia showed us how to unilaterally take another country's sovereign territory with crimea
flood the area with your own citizens. then they simply announce what country they really are a part of after some political turmoil in the country's capital. which, weak as russia is, should be easy for a rich china to corrupt
sure, texas being snatched form mexico wasn't bloodless, but by the time the mexicans put up a fight, it was too late: the immigrant population had already tipped allegiances
the change will be slow and inevitable. nobody will nuke anyone because it won't be an overnight military invasion. just immigration leading to gradual social and political realignment, helped along by corrupting influence
it crushes political maturity and instead offers worship of one super strong super tough exkgb goon putin, like north korean cult of personality bullshit
rather than diversify the economy it tries to become a petrostate (now with crashing oil prices)
it panders to simpleminded fears and hatred now with gays and sexual minorites, so it is culturally and socially rotting too
is russia trying to weaken as best as it can?
with a surging imperialist china, which has a border dispute with every single one of its neighbors: stealing land from india, stealing philippine/ vietnamese/ japanese islands, etc... how long until china says "fuck it" and just flat out takes siberia from sick pathetic dying russia?
the greatest education giveaway in the usa gave rise to the greatest extent of the american middle class in history, and also underlies many of our current racial socioeconomic problems, because it was not fairly allocated
The G.I. Bill was a major factor in the creation of the American middle class, but also substantially increased racial inequality because many of the benefits of the G.I. bill were not granted to soldiers of color.[4] This is because "at the very moment when a wide array of public policies was providing most white Americans with valuable tools to advance their social welfare—insure their old age, get good jobs, acquire economic security, build assets, and gain middle-class status—most black Americans were left behind or left out." [5]
people who dislike government handouts talk about hard work and meritocracy. but if the poor do not have equal access to education (further exacerbated by plain old racism), then you are creating a class-based, entrenched society where your future success is determined by how rich your parents are or what color they are, not how hard you work
you can work extremely hard but be poor and not have education, and therefore not advance economically. while some lazy rich lay-about depends upon his class's or his parent's connections and get cushy low effort placeholder job
that's not a meritocracy
i am all for people rising or falling depending on the extent of their hard work
but i also am for everyone starting in at least roughly the same place. which requires education supplementation for those born poor. which means, if you believe in meritocracy, you MUST believe in government education handouts to the poor. or else you have a logically inconsistent, contradictory, and incomplete ideology
as an american, i am confronted with limits other democracies put on free speech sometimes. for example: germany disallows nazi symbolism. as an american i am not as threatened by this symbol, as nazism never overran my country, and so i find myslef at first opposed to the german limitation as a violation of the right to free speech
but on deeper thought, i understand why germany would want to do this, and i see no conflict with free expression in the end. because the nazi symbol in germany clearly represents the ideology of ending free expression violently
so there is no logical conflict: all rights have natural, logical limits, they are not endless. in regards to the special case of using freedoms to actively seeking the destruction of freedoms
for example: you have a right to life, unless you threaten another person's life
you have the right to a free press, unless you use that right to call for violent limits on the free press
and, now, my point here: you have a right to free expression, unless you use it to advocate a limit on free expression violently
i'm not saying someone can't say "you should not say that." i'm saying no one should be able to say "if you say that, i will kill you"
no one should be allowed to use freedoms granted to them to deny others freedom
in this way, we have the right to limit hateful violent religious speech that calls for the destruction of the tolerance that allows that hateful violent religious speech to be spoken, and we are not violating our own free speech principles. the logical failure is with using freedoms to deny freedoms, not with the opposition to doing that. just like with nazi symbols in germany: it is not logically inconsistent with free speech to limit that symbol, because the symbol means destroying free speech
so i believe france should have the right to limit all religious speech that calls for the ending of fundamental rights violently. jail or expel imams and groups that call for violent attacks on free speech. there is no logical conflict with a rights-loving democracy to do that, because the only thing being limited is the cancer that actively seeks to end rights
there is no slippery slope here: no one should be allowed to oppose a fundamental freedom with violence. you invoke the right to stop someone's speech ONLY if that speech calls for violence to end to free speech
intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself
Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?". He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue".[1] Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2]
states without helmet laws have higher motorcycle death rates
states without fireworks laws have greater fireworks injuries
countries with poor traffic enforcement have more accidents
countries with poor gun control have more senseless gun carnage
etc., etc.
a motorcycle, a firework, a car, a gun are dangerous tools that must be regulated in civil society. if any yahoo can get any of these things without training, testing, education, responsibility, etc.: bad shit happens
it's just not that fucking complicated
despite all the obfuscations and avoiding of the obvious from people with a bizarre mental block on the topic, like a committed creationist or climate change denier
denial does not continue to triumph over reason in the long run
we will have comprehensive gun control in the usa
the carnage continues, and people are paying attention, despite the blind, stupid, and heartless who don't care
If you want a gun, you prove to society you are capable and trained and responsible BEFORE you get one. That's the way it works with cars. We understand the reasons with cars, that's the way it should work with guns.
But there exists this bizarre creationist-style mental block on the topic with too many americans. Result: an insanely high homicide rate compared to our social and economic peers. It simply will not stand, no matter how many stupid and/ or heartless people say otherwise. You can't stand against simple facts forever. And we won't. We will have better gun control in the usa and reverse the insane constitutional activism of the last part of the last century that made guns a dirty Harry style fetishize item for irresponsible and heartless douchebags.
it's interesting how all your blathering about rights you don't acknowledge we ALREADY HAVE legal gun control. Explain that Einstein. All those of us who think ask for is effective more comprehensive gun control that isn't hamstrung by NRA legislative congresscritters and supported by irresponsible and stupid people who give us a culture of constant senseless death in this country.
You can't stand against common sense forever. Easy guns just means easy death. It is the threat to safety, not a protection. Just owning a gun increases the jeopardy to you and your loved ones. Just ask that poor lady from Idaho from last week who got shot by her two year old. Or the next story from next week of senseless tragedy that happens daily in this country and too many morons and heartless just shrug their shoulders. Well some of us are paying attention. You think this issue is just going to go away? You think so many easy guns in easy access of so many casual hot heads crazy people and gangbangers is not going to continue to generate outrage and make more people think?
We will reverse the constitutional activism of the last half of the last century that has defied the true intent of the founding fathers.
Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was “real danger of public injury from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.
the current interpretation of the second amendment is constitutional activism from the latter half of the 20th century only, and will be reversed to match the founding father's true intent, which is at odds with gun lovers who for some insane lack of simple intelligence, think that more guns somehow means more safety and somehow does not mean more death. or maybe they do know this, and simply don't care out of heartlessness. either way, the legal and cultural status quo of guns in the usa will not stand. you can't flaunt common sense forever
do we engage climate change denying morons in intellectual arguments when their entire position depends upon denying reality and intellectually dishonest shell games?
if you don't understand easy access to guns does not affect crime (look at our social and economic peers) but does result in far more senseless tragedies, then you're a moron. you simply don't understand the facts and reality. i don't respect that
when you are willing to understand the simple cold hard truth that easy access to guns just results in senseless tragedies, then we talk about what we are going to do to clean up the disgusting swamp of guns in the usa. until then, catch the fuck up to the facts
the second amendment speaks of redcoats and muskets and community effort (a *militia*) on the frontier
not crime and handguns and individual action in urban environments
then there is the whole *well-regulated* part: trianing, proficiency, responsibility, level headedness *BEFORE* you get a gun. the intent of the founding fathers is quite clear and it is not "give a gun to any douchebag who wants one right now"
the second amendment is nothing at all like the dirty harry fiction invented in the latter half of the 20th century, which is a bad, violent development, and that constitutional activism against the intent of the founding fathers will be reversed
the USA's social and economic peers without this "ARM EVERYONE TO THE TEETH" delusion aren't suffering from massive crime, massive death, massive rape because criminals are somehow therefore unopposed. because easy guns = more mayhem. not protection from it. easy guns is the problem, not a solution
we need to be more like germany, japan, uk, australia, etc. we start that by telling people who think more guns is good that they are delusional psychotic nutcases and do not deserve to be in civilized society. YOU are the threat to civilized society. your attitude that more weapons in society is good is the actual problem in the usa. you are no protection for society. you are the enemy. your attitude sucks
more guns, more senseless death. this is indisputable. the usa suffers from a huge problem because of morons and douchebags who think otherwise. look at this chart and tell me what the usa's easy guns attitude really means:
it's not really the legal problem. it's the culture problem. the culture of guns in the usa is fucking retarded
stupid deluded americans who think guns are good. they are the problem. they have given us a violent death-ridden society for no real benefit and no good reason
it doesn't take much to mount a DDoS, and one or a handful of ultranationalist douchebags felt slighted by something innocuous someone in finland did or said recently
they had to prove something about glorious russia, so down went a finnish bank
and that you, many times a year, make bad mistakes that hurt you. i know this because we all do
let's assume you are a programmer, top of your field. no one can top your knowledge and wisdom. now you move into management, and you make dumbfuck mistakes 1, 2, 3 that noobs of management always make. should we make this painful for you? should we mock you?
you're starting a new job: there's a dozen things you will fuck up that your coworkers already know. are they supposed to laugh at you?
you do something in your house that creates a $2,000 repair. the plumber or contractor sees it all the time. should he yell at you?
your ignorance of your own essential weakness makes you perhaps much more stupid than the people you mock who don't know trifling technical things but have a much better attitude. you're ignorant of something that many of us realize in grade school. the irony
should i make it painful for you? should i kick you in the face for your ignorance of basic human weakness?
arrogance. hubris. and the worst kind of ignorance: prideful ignorance. that's you. you're what is wrong with the world
we all fuck up out of ignorance throughout our entire life. show some fucking humility and adjust your shitty smug attitude
I'm stupid. You're stupid. We're all ignorant of something.
Malice gets 100% of the blame.
To use knowledge of something to abuse and transgress against another who does not, is a crime. The only crime. And all of the blame
Analogy: if you leave a $100 bill on your front porch, yeah, that's fucking stupid.
But someone has to go on property they have no permission to, and take something that is not there's. That's 100% of the blame. The moral person will not steal that $100 bill. In fact, they'll ring the doorbell and educate the stupid person, that they should be careful and not leave money on their front porch.
You don't punish stupid, you educate it. You punish malice.
Unfortunately, we punish stupidity too much in this world, our anger is always in full rage and pointed at the dumb. And we let the truly malicious off, because our hate goes towards the stupid, and in the meantime, the malicious gets away. Or we have no more anger left for them.
It's some sort of fundamental weakness with human nature, that we do this: punish the stupid and ignore the malicious. When we should be educating the stupid and punishing the malicious.
what about greece? who the fuck cares about greece? how does bringing up greece prove or discredit anything? it's a different country. it doesn't disprove anything about the scandinavian successes. does greece disprove democracy? it's a democracy that failed. does it disprove rule of law? it has rule of law and it failed. do you see the weakness in your lame whataboutism? one example of a problem with complex inputs does not automatically jump to your desired for conclusion. without considering all of the other problems ANOTHER situation has, different than the situation we are actually talking about
the scandinavian countries prove socialism and capitalism work together, and have the highest happiness and richness. "what about greece..." ok, tell us all of the reason why greece failed. be intellectually honest. give us all of those reasons, all of the complex inputs. the corruption. the weak banking sector. the low tax collection rate. the disconnect with popular opinion. etc.
go ahead. give us the real story. not just the one cherry picked reason that is not the whole story. that's how you make propaganda: half truths. i guess you're good at that
the most hilarious part is that this weak whataboutism was a solid SOVIET propaganda tactic
Whataboutism is a nickname coined by the Western political historians for the tactic allegedly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of a criticizable event in the Western world.[1][2] It represents a case of tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.
you would have made a good soviet, you have the same weak mentality
"what about greece..."
what a joke
changing the subject is an intellectually dishonest way of conceding a point. so, in your cowardly way, i'm glad you concede that scandinavian countries work, since you can't criticize them directly and have to resort to weak whataboutism
the usa has social security. that's socialism. socialism is merely the concept of providing for the common good. it's not a complete either/ or, black or white. it's shades of grey, certain sectors of society that suffer under capitalism provided for. not the entire society. you can have nuance, details. if you think that socialism is a complete black or white thing you are only revealing your own perceptual shortcomings on the topic. simply study how the nordic countries work. a good mix of capitalism and socialism. educate yourself, then form an opinion
do you want the usa to do away with social security? let old people die in the street? pure capitalism is ok with that social darwinistic cruelty. which is why we will never have pure capitalism, people will not tolerate the abuse
capitalism creates imbalances and injustices in society that, if not corrected, leads to revolution. the idea is to siphon off and mitigate capitalism's abuses with social safety nets so that the society is stable and productive
do you believe capitalism has no downside? if you do, you're ignorant of simple history
yes. i said that a society that balances between socialism and capitalism is best, and that purely capitalist or socialist countries are worst. do you agree?
i am not defending socialism nor attacking capitalism, i am calling them both wrong, and the balance in between the best kind of society
see if you can think about that point clearly, and not devolve the conversation by smearing me as a lover of socialism and/ or hater of capitalism, since i am neither, and to go with that approach, like in your other comment, simply means you completely don't understand my point
Slashdot Mirror
a weak, poor country can be defeated in myriad ways
china doesn't have to militarily invade siberia. it can just corrupt officials, pay russian legislators to make laws friendly to it, own all of the companies operating in siberia, flood the area with immigrants, etc
such that the map may say russia, but for all intents and purposes, it will be china's siberia
russia showed us how to unilaterally take another country's sovereign territory with crimea
flood the area with your own citizens. then they simply announce what country they really are a part of after some political turmoil in the country's capital. which, weak as russia is, should be easy for a rich china to corrupt
bloodless
http://abcnews.go.com/Internat...
sure, texas being snatched form mexico wasn't bloodless, but by the time the mexicans put up a fight, it was too late: the immigrant population had already tipped allegiances
the change will be slow and inevitable. nobody will nuke anyone because it won't be an overnight military invasion. just immigration leading to gradual social and political realignment, helped along by corrupting influence
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...
"negative impact on society"
read that again
then respond
it crushes political maturity and instead offers worship of one super strong super tough exkgb goon putin, like north korean cult of personality bullshit
rather than diversify the economy it tries to become a petrostate (now with crashing oil prices)
it panders to simpleminded fears and hatred now with gays and sexual minorites, so it is culturally and socially rotting too
is russia trying to weaken as best as it can?
with a surging imperialist china, which has a border dispute with every single one of its neighbors: stealing land from india, stealing philippine/ vietnamese/ japanese islands, etc... how long until china says "fuck it" and just flat out takes siberia from sick pathetic dying russia?
then you should be happy at obama's proposal, as community college matches nicely with the trade school track you see as wonderful
it's also interesting to see someone attack liberal sensibilities right after championing european liberal commitments to education for everyone
"we can't advance education to more people you liberal froot loops! we should do it like in europe, where they advance education to more people!"
logically incoherent criticism
the greatest education giveaway in the usa gave rise to the greatest extent of the american middle class in history, and also underlies many of our current racial socioeconomic problems, because it was not fairly allocated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
people who dislike government handouts talk about hard work and meritocracy. but if the poor do not have equal access to education (further exacerbated by plain old racism), then you are creating a class-based, entrenched society where your future success is determined by how rich your parents are or what color they are, not how hard you work
you can work extremely hard but be poor and not have education, and therefore not advance economically. while some lazy rich lay-about depends upon his class's or his parent's connections and get cushy low effort placeholder job
that's not a meritocracy
i am all for people rising or falling depending on the extent of their hard work
but i also am for everyone starting in at least roughly the same place. which requires education supplementation for those born poor. which means, if you believe in meritocracy, you MUST believe in government education handouts to the poor. or else you have a logically inconsistent, contradictory, and incomplete ideology
as an american, i am confronted with limits other democracies put on free speech sometimes. for example: germany disallows nazi symbolism. as an american i am not as threatened by this symbol, as nazism never overran my country, and so i find myslef at first opposed to the german limitation as a violation of the right to free speech
but on deeper thought, i understand why germany would want to do this, and i see no conflict with free expression in the end. because the nazi symbol in germany clearly represents the ideology of ending free expression violently
so there is no logical conflict: all rights have natural, logical limits, they are not endless. in regards to the special case of using freedoms to actively seeking the destruction of freedoms
for example: you have a right to life, unless you threaten another person's life
you have the right to a free press, unless you use that right to call for violent limits on the free press
and, now, my point here: you have a right to free expression, unless you use it to advocate a limit on free expression violently
i'm not saying someone can't say "you should not say that." i'm saying no one should be able to say "if you say that, i will kill you"
no one should be allowed to use freedoms granted to them to deny others freedom
in this way, we have the right to limit hateful violent religious speech that calls for the destruction of the tolerance that allows that hateful violent religious speech to be spoken, and we are not violating our own free speech principles. the logical failure is with using freedoms to deny freedoms, not with the opposition to doing that. just like with nazi symbols in germany: it is not logically inconsistent with free speech to limit that symbol, because the symbol means destroying free speech
so i believe france should have the right to limit all religious speech that calls for the ending of fundamental rights violently. jail or expel imams and groups that call for violent attacks on free speech. there is no logical conflict with a rights-loving democracy to do that, because the only thing being limited is the cancer that actively seeks to end rights
there is no slippery slope here: no one should be allowed to oppose a fundamental freedom with violence. you invoke the right to stop someone's speech ONLY if that speech calls for violence to end to free speech
intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
states without helmet laws have higher motorcycle death rates
states without fireworks laws have greater fireworks injuries
countries with poor traffic enforcement have more accidents
countries with poor gun control have more senseless gun carnage
etc., etc.
a motorcycle, a firework, a car, a gun are dangerous tools that must be regulated in civil society. if any yahoo can get any of these things without training, testing, education, responsibility, etc.: bad shit happens
it's just not that fucking complicated
despite all the obfuscations and avoiding of the obvious from people with a bizarre mental block on the topic, like a committed creationist or climate change denier
denial does not continue to triumph over reason in the long run
we will have comprehensive gun control in the usa
the carnage continues, and people are paying attention, despite the blind, stupid, and heartless who don't care
Rights do not exist without responsibilities.
If you want a gun, you prove to society you are capable and trained and responsible BEFORE you get one. That's the way it works with cars. We understand the reasons with cars, that's the way it should work with guns.
But there exists this bizarre creationist-style mental block on the topic with too many americans. Result: an insanely high homicide rate compared to our social and economic peers. It simply will not stand, no matter how many stupid and/ or heartless people say otherwise. You can't stand against simple facts forever. And we won't. We will have better gun control in the usa and reverse the insane constitutional activism of the last part of the last century that made guns a dirty Harry style fetishize item for irresponsible and heartless douchebags.
it's interesting how all your blathering about rights you don't acknowledge we ALREADY HAVE legal gun control. Explain that Einstein. All those of us who think ask for is effective more comprehensive gun control that isn't hamstrung by NRA legislative congresscritters and supported by irresponsible and stupid people who give us a culture of constant senseless death in this country.
You can't stand against common sense forever. Easy guns just means easy death. It is the threat to safety, not a protection. Just owning a gun increases the jeopardy to you and your loved ones. Just ask that poor lady from Idaho from last week who got shot by her two year old. Or the next story from next week of senseless tragedy that happens daily in this country and too many morons and heartless just shrug their shoulders. Well some of us are paying attention. You think this issue is just going to go away? You think so many easy guns in easy access of so many casual hot heads crazy people and gangbangers is not going to continue to generate outrage and make more people think?
We will reverse the constitutional activism of the last half of the last century that has defied the true intent of the founding fathers.
Tick tock, tick tock.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...
the current interpretation of the second amendment is constitutional activism from the latter half of the 20th century only, and will be reversed to match the founding father's true intent, which is at odds with gun lovers who for some insane lack of simple intelligence, think that more guns somehow means more safety and somehow does not mean more death. or maybe they do know this, and simply don't care out of heartlessness. either way, the legal and cultural status quo of guns in the usa will not stand. you can't flaunt common sense forever
do creationists deserve debate?
do we engage climate change denying morons in intellectual arguments when their entire position depends upon denying reality and intellectually dishonest shell games?
if you don't understand easy access to guns does not affect crime (look at our social and economic peers) but does result in far more senseless tragedies, then you're a moron. you simply don't understand the facts and reality. i don't respect that
when you are willing to understand the simple cold hard truth that easy access to guns just results in senseless tragedies, then we talk about what we are going to do to clean up the disgusting swamp of guns in the usa. until then, catch the fuck up to the facts
that's due to better policing. look up COMPSTAT
how is it that our social and economic peers have similar levels of crime, but far lower violent deaths?
clue: they also have police, and they don't hand out guns like candy
the second amendment speaks of redcoats and muskets and community effort (a *militia*) on the frontier
not crime and handguns and individual action in urban environments
then there is the whole *well-regulated* part: trianing, proficiency, responsibility, level headedness *BEFORE* you get a gun. the intent of the founding fathers is quite clear and it is not "give a gun to any douchebag who wants one right now"
the second amendment is nothing at all like the dirty harry fiction invented in the latter half of the 20th century, which is a bad, violent development, and that constitutional activism against the intent of the founding fathers will be reversed
the USA's social and economic peers without this "ARM EVERYONE TO THE TEETH" delusion aren't suffering from massive crime, massive death, massive rape because criminals are somehow therefore unopposed. because easy guns = more mayhem. not protection from it. easy guns is the problem, not a solution
we need to be more like germany, japan, uk, australia, etc. we start that by telling people who think more guns is good that they are delusional psychotic nutcases and do not deserve to be in civilized society. YOU are the threat to civilized society. your attitude that more weapons in society is good is the actual problem in the usa. you are no protection for society. you are the enemy. your attitude sucks
more guns, more senseless death. this is indisputable. the usa suffers from a huge problem because of morons and douchebags who think otherwise. look at this chart and tell me what the usa's easy guns attitude really means:
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/...
it's not really the legal problem. it's the culture problem. the culture of guns in the usa is fucking retarded
stupid deluded americans who think guns are good. they are the problem. they have given us a violent death-ridden society for no real benefit and no good reason
russians
it doesn't take much to mount a DDoS, and one or a handful of ultranationalist douchebags felt slighted by something innocuous someone in finland did or said recently
they had to prove something about glorious russia, so down went a finnish bank
it makes sense in some propagandized loser's head
positive reinforcement works better than negative punishment for long term learning. you use the negative in dire circumstances
you do realize you yourself are stupid
and that you, many times a year, make bad mistakes that hurt you. i know this because we all do
let's assume you are a programmer, top of your field. no one can top your knowledge and wisdom. now you move into management, and you make dumbfuck mistakes 1, 2, 3 that noobs of management always make. should we make this painful for you? should we mock you?
you're starting a new job: there's a dozen things you will fuck up that your coworkers already know. are they supposed to laugh at you?
you do something in your house that creates a $2,000 repair. the plumber or contractor sees it all the time. should he yell at you?
your ignorance of your own essential weakness makes you perhaps much more stupid than the people you mock who don't know trifling technical things but have a much better attitude. you're ignorant of something that many of us realize in grade school. the irony
should i make it painful for you? should i kick you in the face for your ignorance of basic human weakness?
arrogance. hubris. and the worst kind of ignorance: prideful ignorance. that's you. you're what is wrong with the world
we all fuck up out of ignorance throughout our entire life. show some fucking humility and adjust your shitty smug attitude
Everyone is stupid.
I'm stupid. You're stupid. We're all ignorant of something.
Malice gets 100% of the blame.
To use knowledge of something to abuse and transgress against another who does not, is a crime. The only crime. And all of the blame
Analogy: if you leave a $100 bill on your front porch, yeah, that's fucking stupid.
But someone has to go on property they have no permission to, and take something that is not there's. That's 100% of the blame. The moral person will not steal that $100 bill. In fact, they'll ring the doorbell and educate the stupid person, that they should be careful and not leave money on their front porch.
You don't punish stupid, you educate it. You punish malice.
Unfortunately, we punish stupidity too much in this world, our anger is always in full rage and pointed at the dumb. And we let the truly malicious off, because our hate goes towards the stupid, and in the meantime, the malicious gets away. Or we have no more anger left for them.
It's some sort of fundamental weakness with human nature, that we do this: punish the stupid and ignore the malicious. When we should be educating the stupid and punishing the malicious.
i stopped reading there
you're a hopeless moron
more whataboutism, more examples of DIFFERENT countries
try refuting what doesn't work about the scandinavian countries specifically
you can't. so you change the subject. that says a lot about your failed position
you didn't read a single thing i wrote, did you?
read paragraph 2 and 3
good luck on your intellectual growth, you need it
"what about greece..."
what about greece? who the fuck cares about greece? how does bringing up greece prove or discredit anything? it's a different country. it doesn't disprove anything about the scandinavian successes. does greece disprove democracy? it's a democracy that failed. does it disprove rule of law? it has rule of law and it failed. do you see the weakness in your lame whataboutism? one example of a problem with complex inputs does not automatically jump to your desired for conclusion. without considering all of the other problems ANOTHER situation has, different than the situation we are actually talking about
the scandinavian countries prove socialism and capitalism work together, and have the highest happiness and richness. "what about greece..." ok, tell us all of the reason why greece failed. be intellectually honest. give us all of those reasons, all of the complex inputs. the corruption. the weak banking sector. the low tax collection rate. the disconnect with popular opinion. etc.
go ahead. give us the real story. not just the one cherry picked reason that is not the whole story. that's how you make propaganda: half truths. i guess you're good at that
the most hilarious part is that this weak whataboutism was a solid SOVIET propaganda tactic
you think like what you hate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
you would have made a good soviet, you have the same weak mentality
"what about greece..."
what a joke
changing the subject is an intellectually dishonest way of conceding a point. so, in your cowardly way, i'm glad you concede that scandinavian countries work, since you can't criticize them directly and have to resort to weak whataboutism
the usa has social security. that's socialism. socialism is merely the concept of providing for the common good. it's not a complete either/ or, black or white. it's shades of grey, certain sectors of society that suffer under capitalism provided for. not the entire society. you can have nuance, details. if you think that socialism is a complete black or white thing you are only revealing your own perceptual shortcomings on the topic. simply study how the nordic countries work. a good mix of capitalism and socialism. educate yourself, then form an opinion
do you want the usa to do away with social security? let old people die in the street? pure capitalism is ok with that social darwinistic cruelty. which is why we will never have pure capitalism, people will not tolerate the abuse
capitalism creates imbalances and injustices in society that, if not corrected, leads to revolution. the idea is to siphon off and mitigate capitalism's abuses with social safety nets so that the society is stable and productive
do you believe capitalism has no downside? if you do, you're ignorant of simple history
you have no idea what you are talking about
yes. i said that a society that balances between socialism and capitalism is best, and that purely capitalist or socialist countries are worst. do you agree?
i am not defending socialism nor attacking capitalism, i am calling them both wrong, and the balance in between the best kind of society
see if you can think about that point clearly, and not devolve the conversation by smearing me as a lover of socialism and/ or hater of capitalism, since i am neither, and to go with that approach, like in your other comment, simply means you completely don't understand my point