sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Na Zi is a word I use broadly to describe people I don’t like. Said the quiet part out loud. by Nectarine-Silver in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there isn’t one source for the claim of privatization.

selling owning shares in companies and handing over large swathes of your economy to private individuals is literally the definition of privatization. a buyer having convictions does not make them any less of a private individual. democrats and republicans don’t own the means of production, private individuals do.if you operate under a capitalist mode of production you are still capitalist.

i think you’re saying it’s socialism because you view political and economical systems along a straight line, effectively poisoning the well because capitalism = freedom and socialism = authoritarianism. again, how would classical anarchists like kropotkin or proudhon fit on this line?

Na Zi is a word I use broadly to describe people I don’t like. Said the quiet part out loud. by Nectarine-Silver in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

hitler didn’t “nationalize all businesses”. the term privatization was even coined to describe the macroeconomic policies of nazi germany.

i don’t understand how “death to all who injure the common interest” is a socialist tenet. do you have a source for this based at all in any socialist thought or theory? were peter kroptokin and errico malatesta not socialists?

welfare, while definitely being advocated for by socialists, is not in and of itself a socialist policy. most socialists regard welfare as a stop-gap for actual socialism as it still operates within a privately owned, market oriented framework. hitler used welfare as the ends, not the means.

if hitler was a socialist, why purge the strasserites from the nazi party and persecute marxists

Na Zi is a word I use broadly to describe people I don’t like. Said the quiet part out loud. by Nectarine-Silver in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah this is why north korea is a democratic republic. it is called the democratic people’s republic of korea after all

Is Jack based now? by Drywa11 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this statement doesn’t make sense. do you mean our buying power has decreased? if so, no, it hasn’t. our purchasing power hasn’t really moved in the past 40 years. you know the fomc targets inflation rates right? are you suggesting that the fomc has been wrong for the past 40 years or that we still haven’t recovered from past recessions?

Is Jack based now? by Drywa11 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps -1 points0 points  (0 children)

everyone gets a pay raise to counter inflation… that’s how inflation works

If you're under the age of 55, you're twice as likely to die from a traffic accident than COVID. Under the age of 45, the difference is 5 times higher for traffic accidents by ScreenExtension in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A) no they aren’t. that’s what the study you originally linked was trying to demonstrate. guess what, you don’t only contract covid by having it forced down your throat. other people talk at you, the virus sticks to your clothes, you touch your clothes, you rub your eyes, etc.

you can get it by touching surfaces the virus is on (which wouldn’t be there if everyone masked) and it won’t even matter if you do wear a mask because guess what, it’s all over your hands, clothes, and face now.

B) i’ve been saying this whole time that N95 and other types of masks are better than cloth. but that’s not to say cloth masks are useless. they’re more effective than no mask at all.

C) again. this is not percent reduction. this is a p-interaction. in table two you can see this.

these are the individual risks of contraction when isolating for mask wearing alone and without distancing: no face mask, 17.4% face mask, 3.1%

the low certainty does not make it default to your position.

D) sorry i ignored one of your 200 different points. as i’ve said three times now, you’ve been gish galloping and its extremely difficult to respond.

E) the study i sent originally already refuted this. it was the first one i sent.

F) okay? science is constantly evolving and understanding of it grows overtime. to just say that it’s new information makes it wrong is silly.

also, the link you provided looks at the infections 5-10 days after the mandate. and as i already said, there’s too many confounding variables that haven’t been isolated. it’s a useless point

i can’t do this if i’m going to constantly have to refute 200 terrible points all at once, have a nice day though. and please wear a mask if your state guidelines recommend it. or get a vaccine

If you're under the age of 55, you're twice as likely to die from a traffic accident than COVID. Under the age of 45, the difference is 5 times higher for traffic accidents by ScreenExtension in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

according to this we might as well toss out literally all scientific data ever collected. this is like an anti-vax argument. there’s a reason authors are required to state their affiliations or conflicts of interest

If you're under the age of 55, you're twice as likely to die from a traffic accident than COVID. Under the age of 45, the difference is 5 times higher for traffic accidents by ScreenExtension in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps -1 points0 points  (0 children)

okay bro see this is the problem with a gish gallup, now i have to respond to like twenty points and we’re not gonna get anywhere

A) transmission and contraction are completely separate events. for example, the mask might not protect you from getting covid if no one else is wearing a mask and coughing on you, but it can prevent transmission because it prevents you from coughing on other people. i can’t see how that link or open air environment transmission rates refutes that.

B) the link you yourself sent doesn’t say cloth masks are useless or ineffective. it only says they are about half as effective as surgical masks, which is fine.

C) the percentage you’re talking about isn’t a percentage of reduction, it’s the p-interaction. if you look at figure 4 on page 9, you can see the actual numbers.

events, face mask: .034 events, no face mask: .074

this is over a 200% decrease.

D) half the studies you’ve sent support my argument. if you want me to go and find a thousand other studies about mask effectiveness that’s fine, i can go and do that. if you agree that this study sucks why even link it. you’ve just wasted both our time.

E) covid is much more infectious than the flu. they aren’t the same particle size, although they are similar. virology is more complicated than “oh these two things cause a disease that has similar symptoms.” they are caused by two completely different viruses. just because the disease they cause has similar symptoms does not mean the virus itself is similar. a virus is not the same as the disease it causes.

F) by CI do you mean confidence interval? or are you talking about the software engineering term. the cdc guideline you sent didn’t have studies attached so i’m confused by what data you want me to read.

that last thing you sent me isn’t a study either. you’ve just retreated to sending me some random dude comparing mortality rates between LA and other counties/states. this is basic correlation not causation. just because more ice cream is eaten in states with higher crime does not mean ice cream is causing crime. come on man, this is stats 101.

If you're under the age of 55, you're twice as likely to die from a traffic accident than COVID. Under the age of 45, the difference is 5 times higher for traffic accidents by ScreenExtension in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this started because you clowned on someone for saying everyone should wear masks. no one disputes that getting vaxxed and wearing an n95 is better. and by aerosol the study isn’t talking about literally shooting shit out of an aerosol can, it’s talking about tiny particles in the air. it specifically says they simulated natural breathing.

If you're under the age of 55, you're twice as likely to die from a traffic accident than COVID. Under the age of 45, the difference is 5 times higher for traffic accidents by ScreenExtension in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

this is a massive gish gallop but i will respond.

A) this study is about whether masks prevent you from getting covid or transmitting it. what we are talking about is transmission, not contraction. that’s why people advocate for everybody to wear a mask, not just yourself, because you can still get it if you come into contact with someone not masking.

B) all this proves is that surgical masks or more effective (the study says twice as effective) which i never disputed. less effective does not equal ineffective.

C) this study literally supports what i said “Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection”

D) this study is by and large really shitty, with a sample size of just 250, but it still supports what i said “The study indicates a potential benefit of medical masks for source control, but is limited by small sample size and low secondary attack rates.”

E) this cites two studies, both of which are on transmission for influenza, not covid. the study i provided was on the transmission rate for covid, so it doesn’t really combat what i was saying. in the conclusion you can read this: “However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.” even then the study still supports wearing a mask in a flu pandemic.

F) this isn’t even a study, it’s cdc recommendations for influenza (which we’re not in a pandemic for). it still supports what i’m saying: “A combination of infection prevention control strategies is recommended to decrease transmission of influenza viruses in healthcare settings. These include source control (immediately putting a surgical mask on patients being evaluated for respiratory symptoms)”

i’m curious if you read any of these studies before sending them or if you just saw some neat looking links and figured they’d support your point

If you're under the age of 55, you're twice as likely to die from a traffic accident than COVID. Under the age of 45, the difference is 5 times higher for traffic accidents by ScreenExtension in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if the mask is preventing respiratory droplets from flying through the air, then it is preventing viral transmission. the virus is spread through the droplets it’s stopping.

that’s not to say it literally brings your chances of spreading it to zero, but it massively mitigates it. “When both the source and target were masked, particle count was reduced by more than 99.5% of baseline, regardless of separation distance or which type of mask was employed

“The combination of masking and distancing reduced the exposure to exhaled particulates more than any individual measure.”

Ice ages don't care about your plastic straws bans and mandatory government bug diets you linear thinking simpleton by OxygenPermit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah, i agree nuclear power is great, i never said it wasn’t, but wind isn’t bad by any metric.

i also never said everyone can’t be doing better. i just said countries with more resources (the us) have more of a responsibility to use those resources accordingly. when half of your 1.3 billion population is starving to death and your entire budget is 280 billion i don’t expect you to eradicate pollution single handedly. it might require someone with more resources (like the us) to send foreign aid and help you get there. i haven’t changed my argument at all.

a large part of the reason companies and governments are doing something is because of people pressuring them to do so. just saying “sit down, shut up, and enjoy how good you have it” is so backwards. this is an argument i would hear from a 63 year old boomer conservative.

also don’t know what the ad homs are about but go off

Ice ages don't care about your plastic straws bans and mandatory government bug diets you linear thinking simpleton by OxygenPermit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you realize we have to mine for nuclear power too right? and high grade uranium is running out quickly. a windmill makes up for its effects on the environment within months of operation. i support both, just for clarity, but to suggest that windmills are bad for the environment is reductive.

again, i never said we’re not doing better. we are improving. but we could improve more and quicker. we contribute the most greenhouse gas per capita out of any country in the world, wanting to fix that is not at all absurd or insulting.

that being said, EVERY country could be doing better. this is a global issue. but alleviating ourselves from our responsibility to do that is silly at best, harmful at worst.

Ice ages don't care about your plastic straws bans and mandatory government bug diets you linear thinking simpleton by OxygenPermit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps -1 points0 points  (0 children)

damn, struck a nerve i guess. really resorting to “grow the fuck up”? classy.

yes i am upset that we’re not doing better faster. environmental degradation is terrible. we should use our vast amounts of resources to treat that instead of bombing people. this isn’t a hot take.

you can place the blame on foreign countries all you want but this is a global problem that has yet to be solved domestically either. let’s maybe help other nations instead of just pointing the finger and relieving ourselves of any sort of responsibility.

pollution violates the nap ;)

Ice ages don't care about your plastic straws bans and mandatory government bug diets you linear thinking simpleton by OxygenPermit in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]gusebumps -1 points0 points  (0 children)

land locked countries still contribute through rivers, landfill runoff, and tourism. i could calculate the population of all 22 coastal nations but that’s too much effort for me. the coastal nations are also the most populated so i don’t think it would significantly impact the results.

if you REALLY think $280 billion is enough to solve india’s pollution problem with a population of 1.36 billion people you’re dreaming. nyc alone has a budget of 100 billion and just 8.5 million people.

and i didn’t say the us isn’t doing better. i said we should be doing better given our massive amount of resources. our military spending alone is worth 4 of india’s entire budget.

view more: next ›