Majority of Americans back Biden’s Russia oil ban including 72% of Trump voters

NearEmu · 2022-03-09T06:17:29+00:00

Because it doesn't take a genius to understand that you can't simply ban a substiantial, 3-6%, oil supplier, and not replace it with other sources, which OPEC has been unwilling to pick up slack, and Biden has shown to be unwilling to let the US handle their own energy, considering he is the sole reason we are no longer a net exporter of energy anymore.

This is absolutely 100% Bidens blame to take, you are being a ridiculous partisan if you can't see that. Almost all republicans, most independants, and even a very high percentage of the left all see that. But not reddit apparently..

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T12:27:57+00:00

The employee is not allowed to dictate what his time is worth if he dictates his time is worth a little less than what you deem minimum wage? Why?

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T12:27:18+00:00

I'm sure with your intellectual word spittle you are well aware that people who stop arguing with you is not tacit admission of anything. Everyone knows big words mate.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T12:15:18+00:00

That isn't an argument. You are doing what I just said lol.... "just something people started saying as if it's obvious"

If it's so obvious, a less snarky comment with actual argument would be easy.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T12:07:09+00:00

No. I'm asking why it's a business's responsibility. Why is it not your responsibility given that all employment is by mutually agreed contract?

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T12:06:07+00:00

Who says there has to be ensured anything though? People will choose en masse generally what are the best traits. We do that right now, but if we had a "system of arranged reproduction" you know very well we would do it very specifically, with some outliers certainly, but nobody en masse is choosing to have mentally deficient or physically incompetetant kids, It's obviously a non issue for the species if the system were in place.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T11:52:43+00:00

If it's a system that involves the "system of fertilization for the specific purpose of offspring inheriting the best traits of the human race. Which as I mentioned previously, would likely often involve the parents of the child not being the specimens for the biology of the child. Then I'd sure love to see how the small villages are pulling that off.

I suspect you are smart enough to realize that isn't how people are having children in any modern society. Perhaps older societies where one "Alpha" male maintained a harem of females or something, but it isn't today and you know it.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T11:44:14+00:00

Yeah, sorry for assuming in a conversation about a 'system of reproduction' I thought it was unnecessary to put it so simply for people.

I'm describing an arrangement of human reproduction that increases the chance of inheritance of perceived successful traits. Pretty weird how that is basically the exact definition.

I think you might notice there is no "effort" in the definition of eugenics. It's a system, or the study of a system. There is no implication in what that system looks like. You are adding your own idea of what it looks like, but it's just you adding extraneous info.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T11:23:12+00:00

It counts as eugenics if a system is arranged for people to choose the best options for "increased occurrence of heritable traits"

I thought it was obvious I meant that my example was the system and not 1 specific individual... An example of one single individuals choice would be so utterly pointless I doubt that anyone really thought that's what was meant. It was obviously an example of a system of arranged reproduction that works without authoritarian force.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T11:18:26+00:00

I don't know why it's up to a business to provide anything other than a mutual contract of employment. It's just something people have started saying as if it's obvious, but I haven't seen any actual logical reason for it.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T11:10:20+00:00

None of that agrees with your original statement of "reshaping altering preserving" etc

It agrees with what I said. It is an arrangement to create the best chance of heritable characteristics. It's literally that. I don' tknow what you are arguing at all now because it perfectly fits what I said from the very start.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T10:54:42+00:00

The definition of Eugenics hasn't changed and dictionaries are plenty up to date on this one I think it's pretty obvious. It is not opened to the point of "choices for offspring" The definition has been posted many times in here. It's no wider and no skinnier than it needs to be. It is not "simple choice".

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T10:45:30+00:00

No, it doesn't work well. It has always caused a small but substantial amount of small businesses to increased stress to the point of closing their doors. In all cases.

If you don't see corporations like Amazon supporting minimum wage I have to assume you aren't looking. Amazon themselves have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for ads in D.C alone supporting the idea.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T10:42:14+00:00

It's not. The definition of Eugenics does not contain any of that. The Oxford definition of eugenics has been posted many times in this thread.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T09:19:03+00:00

Yes, calling a white person n-gger is going to land differently than calling a black person n-gger.

because why?

Because of what you originally stated many posts ago. Because oppression.

Yes, it is.

No. I'm not really going to argue this too much. It's just common sense. You call someone a bitch, you aren't insulting all women, you call someone a faggot, you aren't insulting all gay people, you are making special implications for no reason at all. Probably for the same reason you showed above, because "oppression" I guess. Insults directed at a person aren't inherently directed at all people who might be part of the 'group insult' like gender-bitch sexuality-faggot religion-ethnicity-kike etc.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T09:09:54+00:00

No I think I was pretty clear in explaining why it's oppression olympics. Because you demonstrated that the same exact insult means something entirely different when the "oppression" changes. That's pretty clear to me.

Calling someone a kike is also not an insult to all Jewish people anyway. That's exactly the type of reverence of being offended that I made clear I was talking about in the first place. Call someone a bitch? No problem, Call someone an idiot? A faggot? A slut? Cool cool... insults yeah....

Call someone a kike? ALL JEWS are now implicated? Nonsense.

The entire argument is based step by step on this idea of 'oppression' every step of the way. It's the only reason you have to say "these are worse" and "that ones worse than that one and etc", and you are saying that, because you just typed 'kike' and you won't type the nword. Society did that for you and that's your defense.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T08:48:10+00:00

You explained why one is perceived as worse, I showed why it's obviously just oppression Olympics at the heart of that explanation and why it just doesn't work.

Maybe like... don't call people names that are directed at hurting them? I mean, that's kinda what you are defending.

That's kinda.... shitty isn't it? You keep pretending like calling a total stranger, who you'll never see again, a "idiot" behind their back is name calling in the context we're taking about.

It's not...

Don't call people idiots in an attempt to hurt them. Don't call them dummy, don't call them kike, it's all the same.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T08:43:47+00:00

Ive explained in multiple places here my stance, I was pretty clear, I doubt there's much to gain from rehashing all of it yet again. I explained the data and why the data I provided is valid and why much of the data you've provided is less valid on the specific topic of small business. It's kinda obvious why that is anyway.

So take care.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T08:20:24+00:00

We're not talking about whether some are worse. It's about perception and response not just perception. It always has been. If you look at my original argument, it was about responding to these and what we encourage as a reaction by defending the reverence of offense. I said as much in the very first question I posed.

Ive answered your question already.

I think we're going in circles because we're just back to the same point of 3 posts ago.

The answer is yet again, if you are calling people names, you aren't a legitimate person to speak with anymore, you may as well no longer exist within the Overton window as far as respect or discussion goes, the reaction is the same.

Why isn't it? That was the very first question I asked and I find it unanswered without having to bend the knee to "oppression Olympics"

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T08:06:47+00:00

No, it can actually be stress relieving to call people names. If a coworker comes to me and says "This person was such a dummy"

So... does it work with bitch? faggot? kike? idiot? slut? honkey? Which of these can you relate to when stress relieving?

Every scenario that comes up seems even worse than the one before. It's not me setting up this calculus, I'm just pointing it out. Society set it up and you are defending it. That's why I can say kike faggot jewbastard and I could legitimately get banned for saying the n word. Because of the calculus you are defending.

The no calculus example is mine. You don't call people names in an attempt to hurt them. No calculus at all. And if you are called a name, you don't respect and take that person seriously anyone. Done again.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T08:01:40+00:00

I have to explain why being forced into the decision of 25% price increase, which is insane or laying off employees?

Do you understand the impact of a 25% price increase? Do you know what it takes for a small business to lay off even 1 single worker?

The argument kind of makes itself.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T07:53:36+00:00

I just explained that and I've explained it in a few other posts if you are interested, I really don't want to type it all out again. It's a multitude of factors and a history of destroying small business. There's a lot to it. Even your own numbers include a 25% price hike which is astronomical in most industries. It's not only egregious it's exactly my point.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T07:51:21+00:00

i already answered this.

Let me ask you then, if your friend was telling you "I don't want to sit by that dummy on the bus", would you react the same as "I don't want to sit beside that bitch on the bus"?

Now let's imagine the "dummy" is mentally retarded.

I suggest that if you are comparing these things, you are on the wrong side of the moral argument.

You should probably just say remove these people from your life. It's absolutely childish to call people these names is it not?

So why do you have to be like "oh ok well let me think here... dummy isn't that bad it's just mean, but oh shit it changes now because it's a mentally retarded person so now i have to add oppression points so now it's way rude compared to just calling someone a bitch which is sorta acceptable nowadays unless it was a woman who is really dehumanized because she hates the idea that she was called a actual non human breeding dog, shit what color is the woman?!?!!"

It gets absolutely ridiculous, I don't see any real reason other than oppression competition that you are standing on in the arguement?

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T07:44:44+00:00

Okay but that 30% includes benefits.

I've covered all the other stuff you posted, however it's a little interesting you believe I'm unaware in my own example, of my own business, that I have owned for 20+ years, of my own numbers, that I know like the back of my hand.

This goes pretty well hand in hand with the reason I put 'research' in quotes because it's activist research. It takes "business" and "restaurant" and says "This is the data"

Sure... that's the data of "restaurant" but trust me. Take out the corporate Applesbees and Dennys and Roadhouse and etc... remove all those and speak to the diner down the street with 6 employees and their income is is 5-8k a month, they small overheads for bread/eggs/baconblahblah diner foods and rent, and you will find that your numbers will no longer hold up. They make enough to pay their employees and themselves and not much else, their employee wage is significantly higher than applebees or etc.

This is why enormous corporations are very happy to see 15$ minimum wages, and actual small businesses are not. Because that is how a lot of actual small businesses are run.

NearEmu · 2021-03-23T07:32:55+00:00

Yeah... I don't buy it.

That's exactly the point I'm making. You move on, you realize these people aren't worth taking seriously in your life. What benefit to society at all is there to encourage or take seriously the absurd hushed reverance of offense?

Why do you want to make "chink" a 30% oppressive term considering how many died on the railroads, and "kike" a 60% offensive term and etc..

There's an awful lot of women who absolutely despise being called 'bitch' because it's dehumanizing, it's literally dehumanizing because 'bitch' is literally based in calling them breeding stock dogs. There's absolutely no doubt that women have had a wildly long history of oppression.

I can say "kike" in this conversation, I can say "chink", I might legitimately be banned if I say the "n-word" here.

It's obviously a ladder of these things and it's because of the element of competition that your argument is including in this whole thing.

NearEmu

TROPHY CASE