FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
No bio...
User ID: 1739
What would you call it? It seems to be a statement made to make a point of some sort, based on Walsh's reply I would assume it is coming from the political left.
Edit: Just a few days ago, Matt Walsh reposted a crypto-Swastika on X (if you don't see it at first, try squinting). I believe he knew what he was doing.
I doubt it. It's not at all easy to notice unless someone tells you it's there, and the guy Wash is replying to (the one who posted the picture, I assume) is making a leftist argument, which Matt is rebutting. There's no tongue in cheek winking or anything like that.
It will be easier for them to salvage what they have if congress makes a strong statement that it intends to keep government working as it had been regardless of presidential caprice.
And they’ll do this by shutting down the government?
The main argument from the Democrat point of view against shutting down the government is that it will make it easier for Trump to dismantle it. In a shutdown he can pick and choose which agencies to furlough and which to keep open, he could wipe out whole departments for the duration of the shutdown. If you believe Trump is trying to dismantle the government and you think that’s a bad thing, why would you make it easier for him to do it?
Only 40% of adults in the US earn more than a bare minimum to survive.
Citation needed: last I checked there were not 204 million people dying of starvation and exposure each year. I assume you got that number from an NGO if you got it from anywhere, so why can you use NGO figures and I can’t?
Only 40% of adults make more than bare minimum of what it takes to stay alive.
That is simply untrue. 11% of Americans live under the poverty line, and even making less than the poverty line is a far cry from “The minimum of what it takes to stay alive.” About 2,000 people died of malnutrition (not even starvation, just malnutrition) in the US in 2022. That’s .0006% of the population who may have lacked the bare minimum of what it takes to stay alive. A far cry from 60%. You know the median American makes $40,000 a year, right?
Sorry, my friend, psychopathy has nothing to do with morality, except to moralizers.
You’re using it moralistically. Rights and concepts can’t be literally psychopathic, only people can be psychopaths. It’s a psychopathology characterized by, among many things, the congenital inability to empathize with others. Applying the idea to a legal right is like saying the first amendment has a fever.
So the only way your statement can have meaning is if you’re using the word metaphorically to make a point. The obvious interpretation is that you’re making a moral claim, that the right to deprive is the kind of thing someone without empathy would have come up with, and that’s bad because it’s wrong to lack empathy. You claim here that you mean to say the right is delusional, which is a terrible metaphor because psychopaths do not typically suffer from delusions.
So you're implying that these stable societies (stable for whom, exactly -- the precariat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat) aren't comprised of a majority of people who experience incessant instability and poverty?
Yes, that is clearly the case. I’m not sure how you could think otherwise, the vast majority of people on planet Earth are not living in poverty. That’s even more so the case for developed countries. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Negatively impact me or mine to any serious degree, and I'll just shut you down.
How are you going to shut him down if you don’t have the legal right to deprive him?
The surface is still going to be hit pretty hard with radiation if you don’t have a magnetosphere, atmosphere or no.
Is this the world you want to live in? Is this the world you want your loved ones and great- and great-great offspring to live in? Is this or something resembling it as good as you want it to get?
Unequivocally yes. In 1990 37.8% of the planet lived in extreme poverty. Now less than 9% do. From 1920-1970 about 110 million people died from famine. From 1970-2020 only 10 million did. In 1900 average global life expectancy was 32 years. Today it’s 71. Historically, 50% of kids died before the age of 15. In 1950 that was down to 25%. In 2020 it was 4%.
We’ve built a pretty great world, and it keeps getting better every decade. I sincerely doubt we could do much better.
Which needs do we have that our small circle can't provide?
My kid needs heart medication each month or she’ll die, nobody I know can make it. Similarly, she needed open heart surgery as a baby and I don’t know any pediatric heart surgeons. We had to fly over a thousand miles away just to find one, since there aren’t any in my state. Which reminds me, I don’t know anybody with a plane that can fly that far, nor anybody who can make a plane that can.
How do you propose to “terraform” magnetospheres into the moon or Mars? Terraforming in general is extremely sci-fi on the tech tree: we might have the resources within the next half-millennium, but even that’s unsure. The most realistic terraforming proposal I’ve seen for Mars is to basically melt the entire surface to release gasses, and even then that won’t be enough by itself to get the job done.
- Prev
- Next

I don't know anyone who died of covid: my mother (in her 50s) got it and was hospitalized, but recovered. My grandmother (in her 90s) got it and didn't even end up in the hospital.
More options
Context Copy link