Mahogany vs ColdTooth
Forgiven.B1rd wrote:
Forgive me but it seemed like a whole lot of uninteresting arguments on semantics.EneT wrote:
You clearly didn't read or understood the entire discussion
B1rd wrote:
I already told you how you were wrong about free speech, but you didn't understand my point at all. Free speech relates to ideas only. It does not refer to lying that causes people serious harm. You could talk someone into commiting murder but that has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech doesn't cover things like this and it never did.
B1rd wrote:
I don't care if the press announced there was no war in Syria, they would be a laughing stock if they did because there is a freedom of information. What you want to do is reduce the freedom of the press and potentially create a situation where the media is controlled by the government. Again you completely fail to comprehend my point that having the government control something like the media is a horrible idea because it can never be trusted to do the right thing.
Most people don't care. Most of the time there is no backlash. As i said above, its only getting worse. The only reason why there was a backlash this time is, because they got undeniably refuted by trump taking the election home. Like saying ''the sky will be blue tomorrow'', but then it suddenly turns bright red. Of course there is a backlash.B1rd wrote:
The reason why the press can get away with what it does it because people some people don't care. They are happy with lies that sound good rather than the truth. This isn't the fault of the company, it's the fault of the consumer. Yet there was a large backlash against the left wing MSM over all their obvious lies over the election cycle, and alternative media sites such as Breitbart have exploded into popularity. This is how things work. You don't need the government to interfere and if it did it would be extremely detrimental.
B1rd wrote:
Now onto the free market, basically your entire text centers around the fact that like I said, you can't personally envision how things would work so you fall back to the simplistic line of thought that 'the government must control it'. You think that if the government disappeared, then all the services offered by the government would disappear to. When you take a rock out of a riverbed, water goes and fills the place where it used to be.
The average iq is so low because these people don't receive any sort of formal education. i can assure you that the average iq was just as low before everyone started going to school. if these countries had functioning governments, the average iq would shoot up over the decades as well.B1rd wrote:
The things that separates the first world and third world is the IQ of the population. You can't have a functioning democracy if the average IQ is 80 or below. A lot of European countries are starting to look like third world countries because they have taken a lot of third world immigrants. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with the type of government.
B1rd wrote:
Creationism should be taught in schools. Not in all schools, but whichever schools deem to teach it. You're not forced into sending your child to a school that teaches certain things. Unlike what you want, which is all schools to be forced to teach something that could very well be ideological indoctrination.
Once you said that evolution and climate change aren't facts, it became very clear to me that you either can't distinguish between opinion and fact, or that there are ideological reasons for you to deny these facts. No matter which of the two it is, they both most likely run too deep for anyone to correct on this platform.B1rd wrote:
And just calling something a fact doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it is. It's a theory. And yes I know what theory means. And guess what, despite people being free to dissent, most people still believe that your theories are correct. So guess what, you don't need to silence harmful indoctrinating dissenting opinions for people to believe what they will.
you can't compare a monarchy to a modern government, that's ridiculous. A government consists of a shitload of people and multiple instances that exert power over each other. A monarch is one guy who can do basically what he wants. Nothing in a modern government comes even close to that.B1rd wrote:
It's funny how you try to make a point about how things were different back in the olden days yet couple paragraphs later you use what it used to be like then as an example to back up your point. You can't have your cake and eat it too. And it's also funny that you use back then as an example when most places were monarchies and the ruling classes had absolute authority over its citizens, it doesn't help your point that the powers of the government should be expanded.
They do have armies in countries without governmental control, and they had armies in the past in europe. They will have armies again when you take away all control. Who currently prevents them from having armies? The government.B1rd wrote:
And yes I trust a businessman more than the government, typically businessmen don't have armies and a police force that actually can fuck people up. You're really showing your true colours as a typical left-wing bigot here by calling me 'crazy' because I repect people's rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and religious freedom. I wish there weren't a whole lot of people like you in my country, being useful idiots and giving up everyone's rights and freedoms on their behalf.
B1rd wrote:
Edit: I mean, the ulterior motives of the government have even been proven by such things as wikileaks, yet despite all the evidence both past and present you refuse to believe that the government abuses its power.
Erm...I think that's a bit shortsighted isn't it? When you get rid of the government these companies can just start exploiting their customers with no backlashes. I mean they're already doing it or trying to do it now (see Volkswagen faking data) but they would have a significantly easier time with the vast majority of customers being unable to make a qualified decision on which product to buy just due to how much expertise is needed to evaluate highly specialised products with hundreds of single parts.B1rd wrote:
When you get rid of the government you get rid of the leverage these companies have.
Lol.B1rd wrote:
I don't really get your criticism of capitalism. It's not an entity that can care about people, it's a system made up of lots of people. How long people work and how much people earn are not decided by capitalism itself, but by the various forces that affect the market that finds the most efficient ways to do things. And by doing this, it creates the most wealth for everyone. A few millennia ago we had a massive percentage of the population working 100+ hours a week (slaves), things have been improving from there.
You do get that I used a relative description just saying "less". I'm well aware that equality in all aspects is impossible to achieve. Less inequality would already be a fucking great lot to reduce warfare and conflicts.B1rd wrote:
Inequality between continents is natural, the concept of equality does not exist in reality.
That's just an opinion of you though. It's not really the anarchist's fault that every anarchic society on a bigger scale was violently taken down by autocratic nations.B1rd wrote:
I also fancy anarchism myself, anarcho capitalism that is. Or at least right wing libertarian values. All the other types of anarchism and communism seem quite absurd to me.
oh look b1rd needs his safe space, he's really offended right nowB1rd wrote:
You know, at least I didn't call your posts 'trainwrecks' or call you 'delusional' and act in a condescending manner. I hardly see the point in replying at all if you've stated that you're not going to post again and you've shut off the possibility that anything I might say will change your mind on anything.
tldr b1rds ideas about stuff are dumb as usualZain Sugieres wrote:
where's tldr
This point actually past ages ago, at least from a spectator's point of viewRailey2 wrote:
Hopefully, the points i raise will be strong enough so it doesn't matter when you get the last word with your inevitable response later on.
I take it they're not that bad then?Railey2 wrote:
they keep to themselves mostly, as one does in an environment where the only semblance familiarity can be conveyed by your own people. Most of them speak neither German nor English. They form their own groups and live life with the people that speak the same language as them, aka people from their neighbouring town.
Most of them are idle, but not by their own choice.
source: Currently live in Germany
That's bretty sad man, but yeah i wouldnt be surprised if anyone does not willing to give them a job if they cant speak neither german nor englishRailey2 wrote:
they're not that bad. i wouldn't be surprised if the crimerate within the refugee-population is higher than the crimerate within the German population due to their shitty situation (lots of distress) and cultural differences (often poorly educated -> more violence), but the violence mostly stays in the camps.
They want to do stuff but are forced to stay in the camps, they're mostly just sitting around. Most of them are not allowed to work.
''The refugees'' taking over the country, haha.
First off, the refugees aren't a unified group but rather a set of multiple different groups. Secondly, they make 1\100th of the population. Theres no taking over the country with figures like that.
The majority of them will have already left in 5 to 10 years.
So, freedom of speech is exactly what I said it is? There is no such thing as 'full freedom of speech", the type of speech that is covered by freedom of speech was defined at its conception. And that's exactly what I've been saying. It's exactly the same as when I'm arguing for freedom, I'm not arguing for the 'freedom' to murder and kill people. You're just using those expanded definitions to argue that limitations must be placed on these things and support your point even when the things you're arguing for actually do violate these principles.Railey2 wrote:
if you don't believe me then maybe you will believe John Steward Mill, one of the most influental thinkers in the 19th century, who (among others) shaped the conception of liberty. There are resources you can find over wikipedia, either on his page or on the freedom of speech article, but take it that the working definition of freedom of speech is: ''the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.''
Lying is allowed under the definition of freedom of speech. if it is your idea that the patient does not have cancer, then telling him that is exerting your freedom of speech. However, Freedom of speech is limited by our government, which means that even though telling the patient a lie falls under freedom of speech, it is still being punished.
This is how it should be. if you say things that can have grave consequences, your words should be subject to great scrutiny.
if joe from across the street says that creationism is true, let him. if joe is running for president, then just no.
Let's take a break here and look at what limits are being imposed on the freedom of speech:
- libel
- slander
- obscenity
- pornography
- sedition
- incitement
- classified information
- copyright violation
- trade secrets
- non-disclosure agreements
- the right to privacy
- the right to be forgotten
- public security
- perjury
with full freedom of speech, these would all be legal. And that's why we limit freedom of speech, because it fucking sucks on it's own and needs to be cut down to prevent harm. One can agree with that and still value free speech on it's own, apart from the issues it has, which is what most people do.
Back to our friend John Steward, who says: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
This maxim is known as the ''no harm principle'', one of the most universally agreed upon ethical principles. All of the restrictions on freedom of speech follow this principle.
My argument is: News sections that are telling lies violate the no harm principle and should be penalized, just like all the other things that are outlawed because they are bad. Spreading misinformation is something that has serious consequences.
Freedom has been characterized as this great awesome thing, but this is not at all true. Freedom isn't great on its own, and it surely is not what makes America great.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be processes which determine the validity of the news and claims, but if people keep watching and supporting news which have proven to be erroneous then really it's their own fault. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. There are lots of alternative news sites which are trusted and provide accurate news, people who are looking for that can find them.Railey2 wrote:
Syria was an extreme example, but what about a conservative newschannel telling its viewers that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) allows taxpayer-funded abortions for everyone? (which is a lie)
You don't realize that most lies aren't obvious nowadays. Even about Syria, a clever newscaster could just obfuscate the issue to paint a different picture. Of course he won't say ''there is no war'', but he could still tell lies about the war to make people believe things about the war that are not at all true in order to influence their vote in the next election. The point was: There is nothing to prevent this from happening, and yes people fall for it en masse all the time, on both sides of the political spectrum.
Because nobody gives a shit about facts. You even denied that facts exist beyond obvious empirical truths like ''the sky is blue''. if relatively intelligent people like you can't even distinguish between fact and opinion, what does that say about the effectiveness of the democratic process?
i accredit this development to the media, politicians and the educational system blurring the line between facts and opinions for decades, and probably decades to come.
There was a backlash before the election was even over, by Trump supporters. No matter the results, Trump supporters would have stopped watching the MSM. And I forgot the statistics, but public opinions of the MSM is at an all time low. The MSM have suffered consequences already.Railey2 wrote:
Most people don't care. Most of the time there is no backlash. As i said above, its only getting worse. The only reason why there was a backlash this time is, because they got undeniably refuted by trump taking the election home. Like saying ''the sky will be blue tomorrow'', but then it suddenly turns bright red. Of course there is a backlash.
if clinton had won by a hair there would have been no backlash, despite the left wing media's persistent dishonesty throughout the election cycle.
And both sides keep lying. The left lies about Trump's stances, the right lies about what the left wants. Nobody has to fear consequences, even though it clearly harms everyone.
You seriously answer my economic points with:Because that's a fair bit easier than explaining how every single system that the government controls would be replaced if it were to disappear. And your arguments thus far are on the same level of "I played Sim City without taxes and lost, checkmate ancaps". But I will humor you.
''When you take a rock out of a riverbed, water goes and fills the place where it used to be.''
- A company claims that their product does not contain lead. it does contain lead! Since there is no control mechanism in place, and of course no regulation, it is only found out when the damage is already done. Since there is no regulation that says they can't do that, there also won't be any repercussions other than no more customers. The company has done a lot of profit by saving all the costs related to filtering iron out. They can use that to move to a move to a different business.I doubt this company would find a market for their product if it hasn't been checked or certified by a private company that ensures that food is safe to eat. If it did, the vendors of this product would face a backlash for stocking an unsafe product, and thus people would be less likely to buy uncertified products in the future, and vendors would be less likely to stock uncertified products.
- A company uses Chlorofluorocarbon instead of alkanes, because that's cheaper. This will never regulate itself because it is not visible to the customer.Similar to the above, the fact that a product contains Chlorofluorocarbon would be evidenced by the fact that it doesn't have any certifications proving otherwise. Thus vendors and consumers who don't want products containing this substance would not stock or buy this product.
- 3 companies form a cartel to control the oil price countrywide. Being the only companies that have access to the distribution infrastructure, no other company can just come in and compete with them. Even if they do come in and build their own pipes, the 3 powerful companies will just offer super low prices wherever the new company settles down, to prevent customers from switching. Eventually the new company gets forced out of business and is bought up by the other 3. They can just set whatever prices they want. They also have the option of sharing their unfair profits with the oil-suppliers, to assure loyalty, making it impossible for anyone to just come in and compete.Well if you're against monopolies, by far the biggest coercive monopoly is the government itself. Monopolies and the free market are a complicated subject, I'm not an economist so I'm not going to claim that I can answer perfectly how every situation would run in a free market. Anyway, it's funny you mention oil as before anti-trust laws one of the biggest so-called monopolies in history was Standard Oil, they controlled around 90% of the market share of oil. They did control most of the market and did try to aggressively undercut competitors. Despite this, eventually they stopped doing this and before the company was disbanded by the government their market share was down to 70% due to competition. They never raised prices to 'whatever they want' as you claim they should be able to. This practical example leads me to believe that unlike what you claim, monopolies in a free market cannot inflate prices and still maintain market dominance, and that aggressively maintaining a monopoly is inefficient and unsustainable.
The average iq is so low because these people don't receive any sort of formal education. i can assure you that the average iq was just as low before everyone started going to school. if these countries had functioning governments, the average iq would shoot up over the decades as well.It doesn't explain the disparity in IQ and test scores comparing blacks and whites who receive the same education and same socio economic level. There is lots of evidence to support my theory and you can only offer speculation on your part. If I were you, I would call it a 'fact' that blacks have lower IQ, and to quote you, say that you have "ideological reasons to deny these facts".
Look up the Flynn-effect if you want. This is an irrelevant argument and i do not care in the least about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4acNo one has a right to abuse their children. However sending them to a camp where someone goes on stage and talks about Jesus is hardly abuse. Instilling religious values on your children is not 'indoctrination', and outlawing this is being totalitarian. Private institutions have the right to teach whatever they want. And whether someone believes in creationism or evolution hardly impacts their ability to work and it does not influence their ability to work or affect skills lime mathematics.
people should watch this. is Freedom of religion something that should be protected in every case? When the children from this video grow up and have children on their own, is it their ''decision'' to send their own children to the same camp?
if schools did this (and they do, in some places), they have failed their purpose. The educational system has to educate, not indoctrinate. The goal of education is for people to grow up and become adults that can make decisions on their own.
indoctrination achieves the opposite and hence should be outlawed, just like scientology is outlawed in Germany.
it is factually wrong, it uses dishonest and harmful methods and people need to be protected from it.
Teaching things that are factually wrong is not education, it's simply spreading misinformation. The opposite of what you want. People need to learn the most accurate description of reality for them to be able to make accurate predictions about reality. This is why unaccurate descriptions about reality have no place in school.
Once you said that evolution and climate change aren't facts, it became very clear to me that you either can't distinguish between opinion and fact, or that there are ideological reasons for you to deny these facts. No matter which of the two it is, they both most likely run too deep for anyone to correct on this platform.I know what a fact is, it is something that is indisputably true. Things like climate change are not, there are scientists that don't agree, and even if there is a very small chance they are untrue that is enough to make them not facts.
you can't compare a monarchy to a modern government, that's ridiculous. A government consists of a shitload of people and multiple instances that exert power over each other. A monarch is one guy who can do basically what he wants. Nothing in a modern government comes even close to that.Governments and monarchies are obviously different, the point was about the power being concentrated at the top. Kings and CEOs are nothing similar, a king has a right to use force to control people in any way he pleases, a CEO is a part of a voluntary hierarchy based on voluntary actions. And a CEO will be replaced if he is not leading a company well.
if anything, a monarch is more comparable to a corrupt CEO with a lot of power in an unregulated system where he has full control over his company and can exploit the market however he wants. Like a super rich and influential business owner in a third world country. This is super ironic, because the analogy works more against you than it works for you, but you don't even realize it.
They do have armies in countries without governmental control, and they had armies in the past in europe. They will have armies again when you take away all control. Who currently prevents them from having armies? The government.What's stopping companies from having armies? The fact that armies are very expensive and companies are there to make profit. Are they going to force consumers at gun point to buy their candybars? lol. If a company could have an army, so could its competitors and everyone else. But violence is extremely unprofitable, so it's not like candybar companies would have miniature wars to try to end competition, lol.
Power will always be abused. At least democratic governments have mechanisms to prevent power abuse. You US is pretty corrupt and known for being imperialist, but the countries in the EU (say Germany) are operating with a minimal amount of exploitation for the power they have. i would even claim that the ratio between power and abuse is better than it ever has been before in the history of humanity.There are some governments that work well, generally the bigger the country the more corrupt the government. Germany is not one of these non-corrupt countries. It has flooded the country with third world immigrants making the country more dangerous for everyone and putting a burden on the economy, and it has censored free speech like I have mentioned before. I could go on about why governments do not work well. If you actually did think that power would be abused, then the natural response would be to limit the power that government has to prevent abuse. But this is not what you want, you want to continue to increase the power of the government despite knowing that it will abuse its power in some way, which is absurd.
i concede that it won't be perfect. But you leaving it up to people that mostly care about money is far worse. FAR WORSE.
you call me naive, so let me tell you something. You say i am blind for trusting the government like that.
i don't trust the government. But i know that thanks to regulations and the government's protection, we live in the safest time since the dawn of humanity. Power is super scary when someone other than yourself yields it, but yielding it correctly can make a lot of things better. What you suggest is just letting things fall into place on it's own. That won't work. it just doesn't. We saw the consequences in the past, we can see them now, and we can predict what would happen in the future.
I'm not from any of these countries, but I know from looking at statistics that these people have drastically increased crime rates, like rape and violent assault, and have been detrimental to the economy of these countries. It's also apparent that the offspring of immigrants continue to commit crime at a higher rate than normal.dNextGen wrote:
anyone from Germany/Sweden able to confirm what really happened with the influx of refugees ?
Like, are they really that BAD or just okay, or what
Did they really do nothing and get paid, cucc'd lots of people, making a ruckus etc etc ?
i've seen those crap over and over again and sometimes i saw the other side of story where the refugee got bullied by some people, so i dont really have a real conclusion / opinion
This has nothing to do with my political correctness/beliefs or some shit like that, just plain curiosity
Also do you really think that someday they'd take over the said countries or not? I'd say it's almost impossible (seems dumb to me imo) yet some people keeps repeating that over and over again but im pulling this outta my ass so w/eWell some of them, like Muslims, definitely want to do that, and implement sharia laws and things like that. They also have very high birth rates which means when they come into a country their population will increase rapidly. I don't know if it's true, but I heard some claims that in the future whites will be minorities in their own country. What is apparent that immigrants with beliefs vastly different to the natives are going to do nothing but cause problems for that country.
idk if you're referring to me or anyone else, either way it's not your call.Railey2 wrote:
i said don't bother
Can't argue with that, I am definitely more right than most peopleFaust wrote:
Tl;dr I am more right than you. Good night friends.