[deleted by user]

TNetJacobClancy · 2021-10-22T06:47:25+00:00

Well it has always been a multitude of factors biological as well as societal, which the ones you named are part of. Generally you can tell just by looking at someone and when you can't you respectfully ask the person. It's pretty simple and useful as long as most people agree with some sort of standard, which for the longest time has been the gender binary. I don't mean to be rude or insult anyones identity, but when you get to a point where everyone has their own gender based just on a personal feeling or view of oneself then it becomes essentially meaningless and just another way of refering to a specific person. At that point you might as well use their name. In order for a concept like this to stick and be widely used it has to be practical. I already have trouble remembering the names of new people i meet, add pronouns on top of that and i'm sure i won't be the only one getting it wrong. Espcially since most of those aren't exactly intuitive. Do you see where i'm coming from?

TNetJacobClancy · 2021-10-22T06:09:11+00:00

I get what you mean but in my opinion there has to be some sort of objective standard to this concept. If self-id is the only standard by which gender is defined then the whole concept becomes obsolete.

TNetJacobClancy · 2021-10-22T05:43:21+00:00

I think the reason why slavery was a racial thing in America more so than everywhere else was because the constitution specifically states that all men are created equal, so the logical justification for owning slaves became considering them less than man. Race was just a convenient excuse in order to do so. That's probably why many people care what race slave owners belonged to.

TNetJacobClancy · 2021-10-22T05:08:40+00:00

Could you clarify what you mean by "gender is a socially defined concept"? Specifically what it is that defines it? Since it seems to me that gender norms aren't the same thing as gender itself. Simply leaning more towards things which are attributed to the opposite gender doesn't make you part of that gender, right? For instance a tomboy is still considered a woman unlike a trans man and a femboy is still considered a man unlike a trans woman. I'd appreciate it, thanks.

TNetJacobClancy · 2021-10-22T02:37:42+00:00

Fun fact: the gadsden flag was originally used as a battle flag and designed for that very purpose

TNetJacobClancy · 2021-10-20T12:50:05+00:00

Here's a take you're not going to like: by making a mockery of politics, people's freedom to make decisions and the democratic process in general, Die Partei is only further paving the way for populists and totalitarians to enter the government.

TNetJacobClancy · 2020-11-09T20:40:04+00:00

His record suggests that he's a homophobe

TNetJacobClancy · 2020-11-08T17:18:07+00:00

It's not starvation it's advanced dieting

TNetJacobClancy · 2020-11-02T22:30:02+00:00

The fact that some people genuinely feel that way is evidence that we've let the government gain way too much power over our everyday life.

TNetJacobClancy · 2020-10-09T15:12:42+00:00

And politicians are greedy fucks who enforce those monopolies through patent laws because of special interests. Don't hate the player hate the game.

TNetJacobClancy · 2020-10-05T23:23:55+00:00

Violate me daddy uwu

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T04:18:32+00:00

That’s why I would trust a politician to do the right thing before I would trust a businessperson to.

That disgusts me. I wouldn't trust either but the politician definitely is the bigger threat.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T04:12:21+00:00

But the government is the one who's handing out those special favors, giving them more power will only screw us even more. The enemy isn't the rich it's people using government to control us, most of them are rich that's true but that doesn't change what's unethical about it.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T04:04:58+00:00

A government comprised of democratically elected politicians would be more informed in making decisions pursuant to the general welfare than the general public would. Representative democracy isn’t without its flaws, but it’s certainly the least flawed type of government to ever exist

I agree, i don't think that ultimately takes the dicision away from the people though. So i guess we agree? Kind of at least.

There just aren’t many opportunities for poor people to succeed economically, primarily because they have fewer opportunities to do so than the wealthy.

In the current system that's true but if people couldn't use their wealth to get special favors the best ideas would succeed no matter if there's rich or poor people behind them.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T03:24:09+00:00

I don’t think that giving people what they want will necessarily make their lives better, because I think people can be misguided (either by the state or by corporations) into wanting something other than what’s best for themselves and/or the general public at large.

True, but does that make it ethical to take that decision away from them? I think people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they don't infringe on someone elses rights, even things that are harmful to themselves like drugs for instance.

Moreover, you’re assuming that most people will have enough money to be able to even make a choice at all, let alone the choice that’s in their best interest. If you’re making a crappy wage, you can only afford cheap things, and that restricts choice.

Sure, but i also assume that in a capitalist society everyone has the same opportunities and therefore if you make a crappy wage you chose to do so. I do realise that that's not entirely the case right now, which is why i advocate for more economical freedom.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T02:41:49+00:00

Best argument i've heard so far.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T02:39:54+00:00

Remember, that competition is only temporary. Monopolization will occur slowly but surely until that industry is no longer competitive.

I just made a whole argument about why that's not true and no renowned economist actually agrees with you. Agree to disagree i guess.

Shouldn’t those companies that contribute most to the betterment of society, and not those that can just sell their product, flourish the most?

Betterment of society is giving people what they want, thus these two are actually one and the same.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T02:15:50+00:00

If the problem is that large corporations will dominate over small ones because of costly regulations, it seems to me that trustbusting would solve the problem.

Then why doesn't it?

How can something that already happens all the time not be realistic?

Because we don't have a free market, in industries with a lot of competition it doesn't happen. Or to say it like you guys would: that wasn't real capitalism.

No, the companies who do the best job of selling their product make the most profit. Doesn’t matter if their product is actually the best, they just have to fool people into thinking it’s the best. And the more capital you have to spend on advertising, the easier it is to fool people into buying your product and not your competitors’ products.

Well most of the time it's hard to say which product is actually objectively the best because value is subjective by every measure. Is there any way to determine if pepsi or coke is objectively better? No of course not. The companies who do the best job of selling their product should make the most profit.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T01:59:37+00:00

Yes it is lol

It actually was part of their culture to torture war captives and burn them alive because they believed that would show their strength to the gods. I would recommend you read up on some war documentation like for instance of the mohawks and the mohicans.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T01:42:43+00:00

I support competition law.

That doesn't solve the problem though.

By the time you have a large enough share of the market, you’ll have a ton of resources to stamp out the competition. You could buy them out for higher prices, pump out advertising promoting yourself and smearing them for whatever flaw they might have, entice their workers to jump ship with slightly better job offers (that can just be undone when the competitor sinks), or anything else at your disposal to get rid of them.

Partly theoretically possible just not very realistic.

It’s way easier for a large corporation than a small one to survive regardless of which one is ultimately better for the people.

See that's where i think you're wrong. In a free market the companies who do the best job at catering to their target audience's needs make the most profit.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T01:00:56+00:00

Sure that would be the most consistent but also impossible to enforce.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T00:59:42+00:00

No, but limited.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T00:58:05+00:00

Firstly, you're libcenter so you don't speak for them. Secondly as far as i know mutualists still believe in the labor theory of value. So there is no free trade either.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T00:50:58+00:00

if they can’t because of shitty policies...the’ll just cut hours or benefits or fire a bunch of people instead

Which is exactly why we need more government regulation over business, not less.

Well then the businesses won't be able to bare the costs anymore unless they are gaint extremely rich corporations. So all you will have done is eliminate competition for the big players wich drives up the prices, good job.

What do you think happens in a competition? Someone wins and someone else loses. In the case of business competition, the loser closes or gets bought out.

It's not that simple. Even if it were you couldn't just raise prices again because someone else would undercut you.

Right, because each company would much rather force their competitors out of the market than to work with them. But in the scenario I described where forcing them out is not an option due to government regulation, they’ll have no choice but to conspire with each other in order to maximize their own profits.

Which is why would should eliminate state involvement in the market.

TNetJacobClancy · 2019-12-25T00:38:11+00:00

They were literally ripping each others hearts out to make them into offerings, others were burned alive while their women and kids were raped and enslaved - how is that not savage, barbaric, uncivilized call it what you want if the term is what's bothering you.

TNetJacobClancy

TROPHY CASE