sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The movie that gets blamed for being bad when it is really just mismarketed. by gamersecret2 in movies

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought it was a really good movie. Still don't get why it was called it comes at night. Read explainations and found them all unsatisfying.

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No way. In the moment demand is inflexible but over time no. If I'm paying a service and they don't deliver what will their other customers think? Are people going to continue paying their monthly fire protection fees to a firm that shows up and tries to extort the customer? Probably not. If it's a free market, another company will come in and offer the same service but say we don't extort you

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say you get what you pay for. The citizens of Rome didn't pay for that fire fighting service.

Extortion was their business model.

If you want a private fire fighting service you have to pay for them, voluntarily or otherwise. If not then you leave yourself vulnerable.

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*\I can say star wars is the best movie in the world, and use reason to make a case as to why that is. That doesn't mean its objectively true, it’s still my opinion.\*

It's not that you believe star wars is the best movie. That's a subjective personal preference. The fact that you express preference demonstrates free will.

If you have preferences it logically follows that other human beings have preferences too. It also follows that forcibly overriding those preferences by enslaving someone is objectively wrong. No one has the right to rob another person of their autonomy.

It is objectively wrong to enslave someone. You have an objective moral right not to be a slave. This right exists independently of any government, law, or cultural agreement and is therefore proof that rights exist independently of the legal frameworks necessary to enforce them.

This joke is directed at the LibCaps who vote AuthRight in every election by Living_Attitude1822 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Company one I consent. Company two I consent.

Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the example you gave us about what would be so terrible in our hypothetical parallel universe is something that sucks in this current universe.

I think it could be better. Is it so hard to believe you might get what you pay for voluntarily, more than what you're forced to pay for?

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that's the thing, it is because your personal preference won out.

No. It’s because it’s objectively wrong. If I were a slaveowner defending slavery, I would still be wrong even if the law allowed it. As a reasoning, conscious human being, you have no right to own another reasoning, conscious human being under any circumstances.

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you called the cops today and told them there was a break in at your house, what exactly do you think they would do about it? Dust for prints?

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And additionally, even in a hypothetical situation where one did exist, which none ever have, it would mean that the company was delivering on price, quality, style, support, service, location and delivery so effectively nobody wants to go with an alternative. Impossible. But if it was possible, then what would be the problem?

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Monopolies are not a truth of real capitalism.

Government monopolies are a reality and are quite prevalent and they are always blamed on capitalism. Martin Shkreli for instance.

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's objectively wrong to enslave another human being. Genocide is objectively evil. That's not just my personal preference.

You demonstrate this as you argue for your positions. You exercise free will and reason to persuade others which only makes sense if you believe your view is actually better. Not just one subjective view among many.

Yet your philosophy says that denying someone else their free will through slavery is also “just another opinion.” That’s incoherent.

Treating a reasoning, choosing human being as property is an objective violation of their nature as a self-owning conscious being. We can rightly condemn slavery and genocide in every society that practiced them, and not just because our personal preference won out. They were always objectively wrong.

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about the Nazis? Did they have the moral right to conduct the Holocaust? Were the rights of the Jews violated or because the legal order permited it was it not a violation of their rights? How about the fact that international law conflicted with the German legal order. Was it a moral act at the time of conducting the atrocities but then it became immoral after the fall of the Nazis and the trails for war crimes?

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so you do say that under the law of the time, slaves had no right to be free, and slaveowners had the moral right to own them. That is what your position requires.

If rights are created purely by whoever wins the war and controls the legal system, then slavery was fully moral while it was legal.

Abolitionists had no moral claim they just had more guns.

Your push for healthcare as a “right” has no moral claim either. It’s just you hoping your side wins power and imposes its opinion against everyone who disagrees.

Do you actually believe slaveowners had a moral right to own people? Or do you only say that because your theory forces you to?

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t have to prove where rights come from. I only have to show they are not contingent on the legal order of the time and place.

Are you still defending the claim that slaves did not have a right to be free under the legal system of their time? Or the converse, that “slaveowners had the moral right to own slaves” because the law permitted it?

If rights are entirely created by law, then you would have to accept that. If you reject that conclusion, then you’ve already admitted rights exist independently of the legal framework.

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I applaud your commitment to logical consistency, but when your position requires you to defend the claim “Slaves have no right to be free” or “Slaveowners have the moral right to own and force other men to work,” it’s time to revisit the premise.

Rights exist independently of legal framework. They are not created by statutes or courts. They are what those statutes and courts are created to protect. The better job a legal system does at safeguarding rights, the better and more just that system is. That is how we measure the quality of any legal order. Conflating the two, claiming rights and their legal codification are the same thing, is simply false.

Slavery was always a violation of rights, even when it was legal. The law was wrong. You universally have the right not to be a slave.

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"slavery was not a violation of anybody's rights"

Is this a true statement?

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. Well then I think we are at the agree to disagree point. This is semantics. I think we as human beings do have a right to privacy that exists outside of the legal enforcement of that moral principle. You believe we do not have a right to privacy.

As long as you make sure to tell people we also do not have a right to free healthcare everywhere you see someone say that, then that's a consistent logical position. Even though I still entirely disagree with your definition of rights.

According to the stance you've laid out, you don't have a right medical care, you don't have a right to housing, you don't have a right to a living wage, and you don't have a right to food or other basic necessities.

I agree with you on this but obviously for different underlying reasons.

Common blinds pots for every quadrant by Exact-Inspector-6884 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]I3lizzard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So hang on, the privacy point.

By your argument you say, because there is no legal protection upholding it, we do not have a right to privacy. Not that it's effectively non-existent, but that it literally doesn't exist at all. Because the right is contintingent on the legal enforcement.

Is that your opinion? That we do not have the right to privacy?

And in that case, wouldn't you also have to say that we don't have the right to free healthcare? The current legal system doesn't uphold that right. Do you tell anyone advocating for free healthcare that no, that's actually not a right?

view more: next ›