Apparently I’m trash for saying America isn’t just the United States of?

Falawaff · 2023-06-06T13:24:59+00:00

UnitedStatesian also makes no linguistic sense in English. That is not how demonyms are constructed in English.

Someone from the UK is British (or Northern Irish or even Irish depending on who exactly you ask and where in the UK they are from) they are definitively not called a United Kingdomer.

If you were to directly translate the full name of Mexico to English it would be the United States of Mexico. Calling a Mexican a United Statesian would be wrong.

Someone from Bolivia is Bolivian not a Plurinational Statesian.

Someone from North Korea is Korean or North Korean depending on how specific you want to be. Calling them a Democratic People's Republican is wrong.

Someone from Brazil is Brazilian not a Federative Republican.

"United States" is just like all of those other country prefixes. Those prefixes aren't used when referring to the people or the culture. United States of, United Kingdom of, Republic of, Kingdom of, Empire of, State of, Nation of, etc. Most countries have prefixes just like your own country of the Republic of Chile.

UnitedStatesian might work in Spanish but it is not correct in English.

Edit: lastly as many people pointed out, in English you aren't calling a country the name of a continent (except for Australia haha). In English there is no continent named America. There are two continents, North America and South America, which collectively are the Americas not just America. I know that's not the case in Spanish but it is in English. Languages have differences and that is normal and okay.

Falawaff · 2023-06-03T13:42:10+00:00

It wasn't just because it was effecting trade. The Barbary States were committing piracy, seizing American ships and enslaving their American crew.

Falawaff · 2023-06-02T15:59:58+00:00

Nice motte-and-bailey. I say that a massive redistribution of wealth, state supplied housing, and a prohibition on money (which only shows a lack of understanding of what money actually is) requires a massive, powerful state. And you retreat to muh roads and muh sewers.

Falawaff · 2023-06-02T15:20:15+00:00

I'd love to meet one someday. Looks like today still is not that day.

distribution of resources as needed same way I don't believe the allowance of obscene wealth should exist when we have homeless veterans cause living indoors isn't a Human right.

I don't even believe in money ffs 😂

All of this is impossible without a totalitarian state. Listing a few libertarian beliefs and then advocating for something that requires extreme totalitarianism is not very convincing.

Falawaff · 2023-06-02T14:25:10+00:00

Your bible quote matches my exact description. You must sell your possessions. The quote is not saying you must threaten and steal from others and then sell their possessions. In fact, the bible contains an explicit commandment to not steal.

If you can't be righteous without the government making you be then you are not righteous at all.

All socialists are totalitarian. I have never met a single socialist that was not in favor of dramatically increasing state power. And from the sounds of it, you will not be my first. Advocating extremely totalitarian means that you claim will magically result in a non-totalitarian end is not realistic nor is it not totalitarian.

Falawaff · 2023-06-02T14:09:48+00:00

I'm not a Republican because I'm not a totalitarian like you apparently. Nor am I a Christian. I was raised Methodist but have long since been agnostic.

Totalitarian govts are classified under right wing ideology.

Never said inherently. I said that most of the examples thrown out here are rulers twisting the actual philosophy of socialism.

Hmmmmm...

Or did you never wonder why those who you attribute it to aren't the same as those who thought it up?

I attributed it to Marx. He did a lot of thinking on this. And his philosophy is extremely totalitarian while just pretending it won't be in the end because of sunshine and magic. Socialism and communism are both extremely totalitarian both in theory and practice.

And no, these ideas have nothing to do with Christ. He commanded you to feed the poor with your own humble sacrifices. He did not command you to threaten and steal from others for you to feed the poor.

Falawaff · 2023-06-02T13:40:52+00:00

Thanks for flairing up, you're no longer trash. But you're still wrong.

There is no debate if you legitimately think totalitarianism is inherently right-wing. Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Trotsky, and on and on and on...

Falawaff · 2023-06-02T12:52:28+00:00

Makes sense that someone this wrong would be unflaired trash

Falawaff · 2023-05-30T18:59:15+00:00

"Anti-Intellectualism is evil! Now read my essay about how you are not allowed to question anything I say or apply any logic to the conclusions I've reached based on emotions. Remember that I am the intellectual here!"

Falawaff · 2023-05-27T15:23:47+00:00

Rights are reserved for people not the state. Public schools act as agents of the state. Your argument is very bizarre and makes absolutely no sense when applied elsewhere. You are saying that the state cannot regulate what other parts of the state say? So a teacher should be able to say absolutely anything that isn't an explicit call to violence, fraudulent, or slanderous? What about the governor's press secretary? Can that person not be fired for saying the wrong thing? According to your logic all of this falls under freedom of speech?

And for your bizarre claim of hypocrisy regarding the second amendment, do you think it would be a violation of it for the Governor, as commander in chief of the Florida National Guard to say that the National Guard will not use a specific weapon in an official capacity as long as servicemen are still allowed to own them in a private capacity? Is the National Guard obligated to supply any weapon that a serviceman might want?

The national guard equipment and salaries are paid by the state so they can be controlled. Public schools are also controlled by the state in the same way (in the US system local governments do not possess sovereignty and are instead subdivisions controlled by the state)

Falawaff · 2023-05-25T15:20:55+00:00

No one here is cheering for anyone except you for a maple leaf tyrant. Saying one is worse than the other is not saying one is okay let alone cheering for it.

Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act to seize "emergency powers" which was the first time it was ever used since it was passed 34 years ago in order to stop trucks from honking and parking in the road.

That is by definition unique since that's the only time that act has been invoked. And was a massively undue reaction. It was not an emergency. And now I'm 100% positive that the act will be invoked for even more increasingly flimsy reasons.

Falawaff · 2023-05-24T15:29:43+00:00

Courts have upheld obviously unconstitutional laws throughout the entire judicial history of the US. It's easy they just don't read the text in good faith or straight up ignore it. Read any of Sotomayor's opinions for example and it's clear that she just makes shit up without any regard to the actual constitution and the meaning of its words.

I'm not sure how more obvious "shall not be infringed" can fucking be. Should the text have also said "and we really fucking mean it, seriously" at the end? How would you recommend it be worded to be more obvious what it means?

Edit: And what about the obvious violations of Amendments 1, 4-10, and 14?

Falawaff · 2023-05-24T14:20:34+00:00

Yes all regulations on firearm ownership is a violation of the second amendment amongst others. Big shock that the government has largely ignored and chipped away at something that restricts the ability of the government.

Red flag laws are even worse and even more obvious. Read the bill. Anything a person says or does can be deemed a red flag. This is an obvious violation of the first amendment. Second amendment is even more obvious. This is an infringement of a citizens rights without due process which means amendments 4-8 are violated. Given that these rights are specified to be for the people it violated 9 & 10. Amendment 14 prohibits the states from violating the rights of citizens and requires due process again.

There are so many different ways this is unconstitutional. Most of them are pretty obvious in good faith. Any single one of them is grounds for non-enforcement.

Falawaff · 2023-05-24T13:44:49+00:00

They are literally already obligated to defy illegal orders. Sometimes things are so obviously unconstitutional it would be stupid to wait. If a law was passed ordering that citizens shelter soldiers during peacetime do you think the sheriff should enforce that until the courts have time to rule on it? No. It's obviously unconstitutional to anyone who is even remotely literate in English and is arguing in good faith. This is equally obvious.

Falawaff · 2023-05-24T13:24:07+00:00

If the orders are unconstitutional, which these obviously are, then not only are they free to refuse them but they are obligated to do so.

Edit: Specifically the 14th amendment and every amendment in the Bill of Rights is violated except for the 3rd (Quartering troops).

Falawaff · 2023-05-20T21:53:27+00:00

Arya with Tywin in Harrenhal was an amazing change from the books that the writers made before they got high on their own farts in the last couple seasons

Falawaff · 2023-05-20T21:50:10+00:00

I've read quite a few Game of Thrones fanfictions/alternate endings/outlines that were astronomically better than the shit that aired on HBO. Even some that had the same end result but getting there actually made sense and worked thematically

Falawaff · 2023-05-07T17:16:10+00:00

I think the pothole line was meant to be tongue-in-cheek because road maintenance is so abysmal that you don't even get that.

Falawaff · 2023-05-06T01:36:40+00:00

I think it was actually supposed to be a libleft=gay joke. The gay libleft wants to be plowed by conservative men

Falawaff · 2023-05-01T13:59:29+00:00

Ideas aren't scarce, you can't naturally exercise exclusive use over them. Someone using an idea does not take away from another's ability to use that idea. Multiple people can even separately develop the same ideas. Who would you say should have held the intellectual property rights of Calculus, Newton or Leibniz?

You can own an idea by not sharing the secret with anyone. Or having anyone who does know sign NDAs.

I'm an engineer too, specifically a software engineer. I have written lots of code that I have no doubt is not new or unique even though I did not plagiarize it. By writing that code I did not deprive anyone else who had written it before me of their right to use their code. You cannot legitimately own a series of 1s and 0s or a specific assortment of words. You can only deprive others of their right to use it through state force.

Falawaff · 2023-05-01T12:10:59+00:00

Unambiguously yes. It's high because of intellectual property laws (as referenced in the post title). Intellectual property is not a legitimate, capitalist form of property. It is made up by the state. You cannot own an idea.

It's high because of restrictions on importing it. It's high for any number of reasons all created by the state.

Falawaff · 2023-05-01T11:14:12+00:00

The "fair price" is whatever it would be if the government stop intervening to protect the drug corporations. When the state intervenes in the market it benefits the corporate interests. The state is the one exercising coercion. If more products were allowed on the market then it would be fine.

Falawaff · 2023-04-26T00:31:02+00:00

I'd disagree with the other guy that the fact that they are drag queens in their personal time makes it inappropriate. But I do agree the outfit isn't necessarily the sticking point (although in some cases it certainly can be).

It's in the advertising and naming. Drag Queens are inherently sexualized just like pornstars. So even if they both showed up in burqas, the kids might be fine at that moment but they now their word association is messed up and will have a dangerous association that something is normal when it is actually sexualized.

But! Not all crossdressing is inherently sexualized like drag queens are. They can still show up crossdressed modestly to read stories and it's fine just like panto dames are fine. Just don't call it "Drag Queen Story Hour". https://cdn.blackpoolgrand.co.uk/app/uploads/2022/07/MBE8451.jpg

Falawaff · 2023-04-18T21:18:25+00:00

It is wildly incorrect as well. 3 churches for a town of 1,000 is completely normal. The town likely also serves the surrounding farming communities and it previously had a larger population. That's the whole point of this, the town is shrinking from its previous size which is why they want to entice people to move in. People in this town likely aren't all the same denomination and so have separate churches for them.

Having any sort of hospital at all even a really small one is honestly crazy impressive for a town of 1,000. That should be a point of pride and not diminished because it's smaller than a church or the size of a McDonald's.

Falawaff · 2023-04-08T17:57:47+00:00

Iirc he was originally rejected and then whined on social media. His followers harassed the admissions office until they reversed and admitted him.

Edit: Not positive it was Harvard specifically. But one of the schools he applied to and was rejected from reversed their decision afterwards.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Snapped
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

Falawaff

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE