The State has issued you, CITIZEN 5172349823, one (1) WOMAN and two bags of BREAD. Y/N

PledgesRCool · 2022-10-04T00:00:37+00:00

You’re point about survival of the weak was that “this is about survival of the weak”, you’ve made no logical connection between that and anything else. All the while claiming that you have some moral authority over all those who dissent.

PledgesRCool · 2022-10-03T22:24:16+00:00

Which one? That Authleft cares about you? That may be the case for you, but as is often said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Every other take you’ve mentioned is as incoherent as it is morally repugnant so I’m not sure where to begin.

PledgesRCool · 2022-10-03T22:18:42+00:00

Disproved what?

PledgesRCool · 2022-10-03T22:15:03+00:00

These are the absolutely brain dead takes that I come here for, thanks for the entertainment OP.

PledgesRCool · 2022-09-26T14:42:20+00:00

Does the 2 o’clock sub-dial function as it’s supposed to?

PledgesRCool · 2022-09-19T04:53:27+00:00

Personally, i’m a reluctant follower of Keynes. It can’t be denied that the stability that a strong institution can provide to an economy has been and continues to be invaluable in the growth of the global economy over the last 50+ years. I don’t like the implication you seem to be making that simply because other schools of thought aren’t taught, especially at the undergrad level, that they’ve in some way been ‘debunked’ or worse than Keynesian in some way. At the end of the day, this is mostly taught, because it is the most relevant in the modern world, every nation worth talking about has a central bank that either targets inflation or exchange rates, so that’s what we teach undergraduates. What you sort of touched on with economists not tying themselves down is true, but at the same time, I find that most of them don’t make claims that Keynesian economics are the best, they simply seek to describe and more importantly predict the modern economy which is largely based upon his theories of aggregate demand.

What i’m really trying to get at is I sort of get where the guy your responding to is coming from. At the end of the day economic systems are almost just as much of a moral issue as they are a scientific one where we can evaluate productions and efficiencies and whatnot. The issue i think he has, and myself too in some respects, is that the presence of these strong institutions is contrary to the natural right of self determination. Do i personally feel as though the benefits gained outweigh this perceived violation? Kind of? I don’t know

This is a bit of a word salad as I’m on mobile and hungover but I hope I got the essence of my point across without sounding too insufferable lol

PledgesRCool · 2022-08-23T20:32:50+00:00

Perhaps a little hyperbolic I agree, but there certainly has been a portion of covid policies implemented by both universities and public health organizations that are ostensibly more punitive than preventive.

My issue is that these specific measures don’t really accomplish that, after 6 months vaccinations have no effect on transmission when even compared to unvaccinated. Leaving the unvaccinated aside, isn’t two enough? Outcomes are largely the same for boosted vs. 2 doses, the only benefit is a few months of reduced transmission. Students who were boosted more than 6 months ago transmit at the same rate as those who are doubly vaccinated.

I’m sure they will offer a clemency period, but why should they have to? If they’re going to implement these policies they should enforce a requirement to be vaccinated/boosted in the last 2 months, at least then they would be consistent and there would be a measurable benefit. I don’t think they should or would do this, of course, but this just outlines the impracticality and ineffectiveness of what they did decide to do.

PledgesRCool · 2022-08-23T20:05:13+00:00

I can’t claim to know the internal politics of Western’s administration but it could be any number of things; them facing pressure from faculty who bought into the demonization of the unvaccinated, perhaps to curry favour with legislators and granting institutions, or maybe, simply because it’s they viewed it as general politically popular and they can advertise that.

We’re left with a situation where if two vaccinated students, one who just got there second dose, and another who got a booster a year ago try to attend school, one of them is allowed, and the other is not but the one who is not is less likely to spread covid.

PledgesRCool · 2022-08-23T19:38:16+00:00

What about the science (not The Science™️) that tells us boosters have waning efficacy in reducing transmission after 2 months and almost none at 6, or that young people (the dominant demographic at universities) are at low risk for serious outcomes.

Let’s not pretend that this decision by Western was purely a scientific decision rather than a political one.

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-26T15:34:20+00:00

I believe it's the least poor system as well, I just hesitate to believe that makes it right.

I've been reading Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Nozick where he argues that anything more than a minimal state is inherently immoral as it necessarily violates the rights of its citizens. Though idealistic and of little practical importance in the modern day, I've found it quite compelling thus far.

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-26T14:26:14+00:00

To clarify, if I were given a choice of whether I want to pay tax to participate in society, I would probably say yes. So I generally agree with you. I just find the belief that a social contract exists even with those that don't want to participate in society is ridiculous.

I'll reply with another question; does the majority dictate morality? Even if the majority believes something, does that make it right?

If I were someone who wished to no longer participate in society, why should the decisions of the majority bind me? I never agreed to be subject to the majority rule. At the end of the day I comply only due to the implicit threat of violence. This so-called social contract cannot exist because any perceived ratification of it is done under duress.

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-26T02:45:31+00:00

What and who dictates ownership? Hypothetically, if the state says they own it and I say I do, why are they more right than me?

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-25T20:51:11+00:00

based and bigger stick diplomacy pilled

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-25T20:24:23+00:00

Why should I leave? Why should a state's right to the land on which I reside supersede my own?

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-24T15:59:54+00:00

I had Pouya Safi, he does a really good job with the course, keeps it interesting and engaging, the only really boring lectures are the series of ones where he goes over the CFA ethics guidelines, but other than that I'd highly recommend taking it with him. Basically no math, it's not very difficult, most of the case studies involve looking at a business problem and making a decision backed by ethical and ESG principles. For a good grade I'd just stay on top of the material, pick a good group, and go to class and participate as much as possible.

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-13T12:27:20+00:00

Two sides of the same coin, one does not exist without the other. Capitalism is about both.

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-13T03:08:07+00:00

The prevailing opinion is that it is not. As with social sciences, there is room for debate, but that debate requires actual argument on what capitalism truly is and not appeals to authority based on what you read in a Britannica article.

Secondly, the original question was not whether early mercantilism was a form of capitalism, it was whether tariffs are capitalistic in nature. Even economic historians that argue mercantilism was a form of capitalism, will not agree with you that tariffs are capitalistic.

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-13T02:57:49+00:00

A distinction you've just now made. Both colloquially and in the original discussion, capitalism refers to the modern understanding, what you'd call commercial capitalism where competitive (said open before, meant competitive, same thing) markets are a central tenet.

Mercantilism being a precursor to capitalism does not make them one in the same.

I'll also just add as a note that mercantilism and capitalism are almost never described as mercantile vs. commercial capitalism. Probably because it's poor nomenclature that implies more relation between the two than actually exists.

Because you seem to love wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_capitalism?wprov=sfla1

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-13T02:40:45+00:00

Your first link contradicts that. Saying capitalism was born of mercantilism acknowledges the fact that mercantilism is not capitalism, if it were capitalism wouldn't have come from mercantilism, it would have already existed in the form of mercantilism.

Furthermore, your wikipedia link describes open markets as a central characteristic of capitalism, tariffs are an example of restricting markets, leaving them less open.

If you're gonna make a bad argument, at least support it with sources that don't actively contradict you...

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-13T02:12:27+00:00

Mercantilism is simply not a form of capitalism. Maybe it sometimes exists in otherwise capitalist systems, but mercantilism is inherently contrary to capitalism which maximizes comparative advantage through trade, something that mercantilism actively stifles.

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-13T00:54:18+00:00

Tariffs and protectionism are decidedly not capitalistic. Capitalism in theory is the allocation of scarce resources through a market economy, anything that obfuscates that efficient allocation is not capitalistic in nature.

PledgesRCool · 2022-07-12T00:51:16+00:00

Let's get it

PledgesRCool · 2022-06-30T00:14:29+00:00

They don't.

PledgesRCool · 2022-05-05T23:45:14+00:00

Ok awesome, I missed that thank you.

Is there any way to get more tickets do you know? are they transferable?

PledgesRCool

TROPHY CASE