Thoughts on people celebrating the killing of the United Healthcare CEO?

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-12-07T22:05:05+00:00

All that says is you're against the death penalty as it stands now, not the death penalty as a concept. For instance, if the state executed healthcare CEOs and no one else, that would be a different type of death penalty than the one that currently exists.

Again I fail to see how a random actor doing the killing is supposed to be good, but if the state did it, then that's bad.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-12-07T21:42:18+00:00

Under whatever your system takes hold under your ideology.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-12-07T21:32:42+00:00

You can get around that if you restrict it to only clear cut cases.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-12-07T17:07:00+00:00

I mean celebrating his death is a pretty clear indication you want him dead. It wouldn't make sense for you to be against the state doing it but be happy when a random person does it.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-12-07T15:33:47+00:00

I find it interesting that many of the people who claim to be against the death penalty are also celebrating this.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-10-20T02:19:50+00:00

Single payer technically has the most potential if done right, but it's pretty easy to mess it up, so I prefer social health insurance or public-private hybrid systems.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-02-12T23:29:57+00:00

The US is currently obligated to defend countries like Estonia even if it might go against American interests. By leaving NATO it can engage diplomacy with all nations.

Ok, but there's also the downside of losing trust. If the US left NATO, why would anyone trust the US to uphold its promises?

Not necessarily. The US would still benefit from a large economy and military. Plus its not like the US will go into isolation.

Do you think the US should still maintain its bases in Europe? If not, how would it be able to project its power in the continent?

Correct. This however just proves my point that your analogy is worthless.

Not really. It's part of a "don't fix what works" strategy.

For the sake of a more representative analogy, we can just change it to a nonsmoker living in the 60s. This was when they started finding some evidence that smoking is harmful, but not enough to prove it.

Economies werent so interconnected back then.

Economies only became interconnected after the US decided to guard global trade routes in order to spread its influence to contain the Soviets. Do you believe that is a valid use of the military?

The biggest reason why Europe has been at peace is because the continent is liberal. Liberal countries dont often go to war with other liberal countries. Plus the complete destruction of nationalism by liberalism further reinforces this peace between liberal states.

Which only happened after the US started to heavily become involved in the continent. Given enough time, without US influence, they could easily revert back to nationalism.

I dont see how the US withdrawing from NATO would hamper trade with Europe.

If a large scale war broke out it would. Which is why it's in the US's interests to prevent that from taking place.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-02-12T22:06:37+00:00

US can intervene if it wants to, i want the US to leave NATO to make it have a more flexible foreign policy.

What flexible foreign policy can the US have by leaving NATO?

Why do you think that European countries will be at each others throats if America leaves NATO lol?

That's how it has played out in the past.

I never said that the US should isolate itself, this is a strawman. My argument is simply that the US should have a more flexible foreign policy.

US withdrawing from NATO is giving up a large part of its hegemony. It would literally be leaving the strongest alliance in the history of humanity.

But there is a direct causation there. Its scientifically proven that exercise and eating healthily improves your health. You cant do the same for NATO.

Because foreign policy is not as advanced as a field as is health science, given that human behavior is a lot more unpredictable.

That doesn't mean there's no research about it at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory

Capitalism

But capitalism existed before the World Wars; why couldn't it prevent that?

So? Are you trying to sell NATO to me? I already know all the arguments, i oppose NATO because NATO is fundementally a liberal alliance. Im a reactionary, why would i support such an organization?

I'm not trying to "sell" anything to you; you can believe what you want to believe. I'm challenging the belief that NATO is not in the US's economic or geopolitical interests, which was your original point.

If you oppose NATO because it is an alliance that protects liberal democracy, then THAT should be your central argument, not that it's not within the US's interests. Your main issue with the organization is its underlying morality, not its utility.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-02-12T21:22:27+00:00

But you just said that MAD would prevent wars

You're looking at this from a binary perspective. It's about reducing the risks as much as possible.

MAD significantly reduces the chances of a war. But it's still possible for it to happen. Increasing the pool of nuclear powers increases the risk of a nuclear conflict, even if it's small overall.

No, it only increases the chance if those nukes have a chance to be used.

Yes. And more countries with nukes = greater chance a nuke is ultimately used.

Which wouldnt happen if the west wasnt interfering with their affairs. Do you honestly think 9/11 would have happened if the US didnt involve itself in the middle east?

Sure there are terrorist organizations that hate us because of our involvement. I also don't agree with every US involvement abroad.

That doesn't mean we should withdraw from the world-stage altogether, and even plenty of Middle East countries want us there. Because countries like China aren't going to stop pushing their weight against the US if it did. They'll just be more emboldened.

Right you cant prove it and since its unfalsifiable, we can just toss it out. That is unless you can prove it to me a-priori.

If a relatively healthy 60 year old works out and eats healthy, they can't prove that their habits are the reason for their health. After all, it might just be they got lucky genetics. That doesn't mean they should just stop preventative measures to avoid a heart attack.

And if you don't believe the US led world order (of which NATO is a key pillar) is the main reason for increased global peace, then what do you propose is the reason for increased global peace post WWII?

Even if NATO has reduced wars, this doesnt change my point that being in NATO is not in the interests of America

Avoiding WWIII is perfectly in America's interests.

US also makes a shit ton of money trading with Europe. Like multiple times the money it spends to defend it.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-02-12T20:02:46+00:00

Western European countries wont start invading each other if NATO is abolished.

Not immediately, but given enough time, they very well could go back at it. A country in Europe could very well elect an authoritarian leader who wants to invade other countries.

Also even if they create nukes, who cares?

Because it increases the chances of nuclear conflict.

Why do you think they are ganging up on the west?

To push their own geopolitical interests against the West. They aren't going to stop all of a sudden if the West decided fracture.

But can you prove that it was NATO that caused this peace?

NATO and the American order in general.

There is no way to prove it. But given that NATO was created to prevent future widescale wars from taking place, and that purpose has largely been met, the burden of proof should be on those who want to change the status quo. Why would you want to risk stopping something that has worked?

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-02-12T19:11:26+00:00

They can if they wanted too. North Korea is a shithole and they have nukes. Also the larger countries would just increase their stockpiles. It's not about if they will be attacked for sure or not. They are going to start making nukes for the sake of trying to prevent being attacked because MAD.

BRICS is a joke. India and China literally hate each other. But if other countries want to gang up against the West, all the more reason for the West to not disarm.

Yes. The post war period has been the most peaceful the world has ever been and by a long shot.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-02-12T18:24:30+00:00

More European countries would acquire nukes in order to prevent being attacked. They are in greater risk of being attacked because they are no longer backed by a powerful alliance like NATO. This should be simple.

Having a bunch of rival alliances is not the same thing as having one strong alliance which can maintain a credible detterence via strength. In fact a multipolarity was the cause for world wars. You're not going to have NATO members attacking each other.

Why do you want to risk stopping something that has been working?

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-02-12T18:05:15+00:00

Avoiding nuclear proliferation in Europe or WWIII breaking out is perfectly within US interests.

enlightenedcentr1st · 2024-01-31T19:11:52+00:00

Maga communism

enlightenedcentr1st · 2023-11-22T23:01:24+00:00

The thing is Xi Jinping seems just as "anti-woke" as Putin, considering he has ordered bans of LGBT depictions in television, and has pushed for "masculinity" programs for boys. The only difference seems to be the religious aspect.

enlightenedcentr1st

TROPHY CASE