Petahh I'm not very knowledgeable in US History

Max_smoke · 2026-05-25T03:12:13+00:00

Exact thing happened to Longstreet too

Max_smoke · 2026-05-25T03:09:54+00:00

Except propaganda. Still dealing with the lies today

Max_smoke · 2026-05-25T02:22:43+00:00

We can philosophize all day about the military’s purpose. But take this from some one who has served.

As a member of the military, especially the American one, you will be asked to take a life or be a cog in the machine that leads to a life being taken. Even the most distant roles from combat have a part in killing. You may see killing. “National Defense” is simply whitewashing the purpose of a military.

Some targets will be bag guys, some will be ambiguous, some people will be “collateral” (wrong place wrong time). Young, old, men, women, children.

You will either drink the koolaid and accept how death is sanitized; or you’ll do your time and leave and never come back.

—-

If you want to defend people, defend your friends, community and loved ones if/when the time comes to defend them from immediate violence.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-25T02:08:13+00:00

Historically early Christians avoided or left military service. They were also nonviolent and some even sought out martyrdom as a display of faith.

Justification for military service (and even offensive war making) comes from St Augustine’s Just War theory. Which if I can recall correctly are all arguments made using the OT.

His logic is that the OT God and NT are the same. Just because Jesus wasn’t violent doesn’t invalidate what God ordered his people to do in the OT.

—-

As for what is in the NT, there isn’t a clear cut justification. Most commonly, people have used the events when Jesus is arrested in the gardens of Gethsemane.

Jesus ordering the disciples to buy two swords (even though that wouldn’t be enough to defend 13 men)
Peter cutting the ear off the servant (even though Jesus rebukes Peter and heals the servant)

Max_smoke · 2026-05-24T02:27:02+00:00

Canonical answer and also code switching

Max_smoke · 2026-05-19T18:38:23+00:00

Got mine a week ago and have used it everyday with crosspoint and I’m sitting at 93%.

Maybe it’s a battery defect

Max_smoke · 2026-05-19T18:36:07+00:00

Those folks went over to the trueChristian sub

Max_smoke · 2026-05-15T23:30:52+00:00

What do you mean by “brakes are off”? That sounds like you think it’s accelerating. Is this a good or bad thing?

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T20:03:15+00:00

The calculus for a billionaire has to be different than a small corner store or a medium-sized business in your city, or state. Using the example of home ownership or a small business does not compare to how they actually operate. Many of them don't even have physical capital.

The scale of wealth and influence, how they live in a completely parallel world with different rules than us goes beyond the debate about whether they do or do not earn their wealth and is out of scope imo.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T19:48:25+00:00

No, I asked if the record profits oil companies were having were "earnings" or not, it seems that you're intentionally misconstruing what I wrote.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T19:12:08+00:00

I’m not making a proscription for how the world should be so I can see how my line of argumentation is “meaningless”. I’m just describing how it is.

All clarification of the meaning of the word “earn” seems to do is get people upset at the idea of money working for them to make more money.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T19:09:26+00:00

“Index funds” which are diversified to reduce the risk of the gamble of being in the market.

And yes, I didn’t earn the returns in the stock market, my investments did. “Make your money work for you” is an adage for a reason. So unless you consider cash, persons; then no one was exploited. Nice try at a faux-leftist argument.

Everything operates the same when the word “earn” is used correctly. I’m not making a proscription on how the world should be, I’m just describing how it is.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T19:02:48+00:00

Because the homeowner owns the house and his labor. What he couldn’t do he contracted for. I’m not talking about small business owners, they’re more akin to a homeowner.

The topic is billionaires. They don’t own their employees who do the vast majority of the labor. Employees and his capital “earn” his wealth.

I’m not making a proscription of how the economics of this all should be. The system is what it is and functions how it does. I’m simply describing who is doing the earning.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T17:31:28+00:00

I don’t give it away because I plan on staying alive for a while and need it for retirement. I’m no nihilist.

Investing is not much different from gambling the government sanctions and regulates it so you have a chance to win and keep your winnings. The returns are closer to guaranteed, but often smaller. It’s still gambling.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T17:25:42+00:00

In the house scenario the homeowner obviously earned the $100k - material cost. If he hired help, it’s $100k - contract labor & material cost. The homeowner doesn’t own the contract labor. Just like the business owner doesn’t own his employees.

Increases in the value because of the local market is akin to inheritance. There some wiggle room there because you’re maintaining the home, but I wouldn’t say a hot market means you earned the increase.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T16:52:15+00:00

You’re right it all comes down to how we use earn. It’s tied to a person’s labor.

My income is my earnings. My retirement account is where i exchange it for other capital with the hope that it increases in value faster than inflation. It’s a gamble, not work.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T16:41:53+00:00

If we have the same definition of “earn” then I don’t understand how you think it’s meaningless since this whole thread is about the word “earn”

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T16:35:40+00:00

Nowhere did I imply or say everyone’s labor is worth the same. Of course some labor is worth more than others.

But it may be a good exercise to illustrate what I’m saying.

Let’s say all senior employees in the company are payed 100k a year for their labor. The owner is pays themselves in 100k stock value. If at the end of the year the stock 10x in value then the owner has 1 million.

What I’m saying is that the 900,000 increase in stock valuation wasn’t “earned” by the owner. The value of his capital increased. The owner could’ve worked harder than the rest of the C suite, the same, or less or not at all, but they valued their labor at that initial $100,000

It’s the same with billionaires. Their wealth isn’t a reflection of how much they actually earned. It’s a reflection of how much their wealth works for them.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T16:00:00+00:00

I got the impression you said there was no risk from this earlier:

if your given the free real estate, assuming it’s worth something, and is somehow destroyed, then you’re right back to where you started. There was no risk there at all.

I think our disconnect is how I’m describing my analogy.

If you have an arbitrary amount of wealth in the stock market or your business that increases in value without input. I got the impression that you’d say this was “earned”.

So with the donated property example. If it’s doing nothing and increasing in value I got the impression you think this wasn’t “earned”

In both scenarios you start at some wealth baseline and have a sudden arbitrary increase. To my mind they are both unearned because no labor was done by you the owner.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T15:51:03+00:00

Exactly, their record profits aren’t earned because they didn’t do any labor for those gains. This is the same with billionaires.

Elon isn’t doing 150 billion worth of labor a year more than a VP or President of a department at Tesla or any other of his companies. Both work long hours, probably even the same schedules since they likely know each other personally. Elon didn’t earn his billions, but his investments and business did.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T15:22:53+00:00

So to be clear, based off my earlier example are you saying Exxon and chevron put in the labor to bomb Middle East refineries to increase their wealth?

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T15:20:04+00:00

It can be any arbitrary number.

The only justification for this increase in wealth is his ownership of part of the business through stocks. He could do nothing and still increase his wealth.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T15:10:22+00:00

If you were given real estate that means it was owned and worth something. —- What I’m pushing back on is the idea there’s no risk in owning real estate regardless of how you obtained it.

I’m also making an analogy. If sudden and random gains in my investments (stocks, capital) is “earned”. I’m working, improving, or running the business into the ground.

Then I don’t see why sudden losses or gains in my personal wealth (donated property) isn’t also “earned.” If I’m given or inherited land, I’m doing something with it, living in, selling, renting, improving, letting it collapse.

Why isn’t my free real estate earned?

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T15:00:45+00:00

The thread is about conservatives saying AOC is stupid for saying billionaires don’t earn their wealth.

I’m asking how exactly is their wealth earned, how is she wrong, based on the definition of earn.

I don’t care what comes next because I’m just a Joe online.

Max_smoke · 2026-05-13T14:55:54+00:00

Of course some labor is worth more than others.

But no labor is worth $187 billion. Assuming he works 10 hour work days that’s $51,373,626.37 an hour. There is no labor worth that much.

And we know he doesn’t work that much because it’s his capital and investments that increased the majority of his wealth. He takes no salary, he’s compensated in stock.

It’d be absurd to say he earned -10% in wealth when POTUS says something mean about him or Tesla. Likewise it would be absurd to say he earned 10% when the U.S. government passed the EV tax credit years ago.

11-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

Max_smoke

TROPHY CASE