SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225

Yes, we all know you think that lockdowns were an abject display of evil which was bad enough to justify your Holocaust comparisons. You're wrong.
I do not, because he isn't protecting anything. Nobody has gained here, there are only losses.
No it's not. Both sides mashing the defect button just makes everyone worse off.
There's a whole lot of people in this thread who don't understand that being in the wrong isn't a zero-sum game. Like you said, it's hard to tell if the woman actually acted like the teens claim she did (since they have every incentive to lie and all), but still. Assuming they are telling the truth, it sounds like everyone here acted poorly.
Fine, I'll concede the point that a handful of specific individuals have gained. But literally everyone else gained nothing, and in fact is losing by this. So this is still by far a net loss even if a handful of people gained significantly. Your rebuttal "but some people have gained" makes it come off even worse if anything, because now it's hurting the vast majority just to benefit a token few.
There is absolutely nothing dignified about this. It's not "dying on your feet", it's getting down in the mud and shit to flail around with a knife before dying from an infection because you cut yourself.
-
It's not, I demand the exact same thing of both sides. But I'm not willing for either side to wait until the other side starts, because then nothing will ever happen.
-
Even if it were, that would still be better than having all out breaking of norms on both sides. Better for you as well as for them, in fact. Because again, this shit hurts everyone.
-
Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.
If you truly believe that will happen, I can only say I don't think you've been paying enough attention to politics the past decade. Nobody has ever changed their behavior for the better when their opponents smash the "defect" button, it simply galvanizes them to do the same thing in return. The last 10-20 years of US politics has just been a cycle of parties playing dirty with each other every chance they can, and it has only spiraled into worse and worse offenses. There's zero reason to believe that this time it'll have a positive impact because it'll send a message about incentives.
So what? This line of argument fails twice:
-
Trump isn't responsible for what they do, he's responsible for what he does. He deserves criticism for provoking others even if they would have acted the same anyway.
-
Even if you discount his moral responsibility to act right, he still shouldn't do it. This pardon still has screwed everyone over by releasing criminals and further weakening the (paper thin at this point) norms of our country. Even if it's guaranteed that the left would do the same next time they get power, we are still better off if he doesn't pull the same stunt. Fewer outrageous pardons is an unalloyed good, no matter what the left chooses to do when they have the reins.
The past two to three decades have been a demonstration of the GOP 'taking the higher road' or 'loosing gracefully'.
Are you joking? They absolutely have not been that. The GOP has been fighting every bit as dirty as their opponents. To paraphrase the old quote about Christianity, acting right hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried.
That works with bullies because it's a single person who you can hurt to get them to stop hurting you. In this case it's more like you're fighting a crowd of people, and to hurt them hurts yourself just as much. It's stupid to fight under those terms.
Nobody said that nothing should ever be compared to the Holocaust. But comparing COVID lockdowns to the Holocaust is ridiculous and without any merit.
That seems fitting, since it was very uncharitable in the first place to assert that women generally both want attention from men and will cry victim to get status when they get said attention. Two wrongs don't make a right, sure, but your original post was super uncharitable.
I have to say I find it hard to understand why you care so much. Even if she does smell bad (which neither of us can know one way or the other, as we will never see her in person), what's it to you (as you will never experience the bad smell)? If her hygiene practices don't inflict any actual cost upon you, I don't see why it matters one way or the other to you.
I understand the frustration. I share it. But unfortunately if one responds in kind then we are doomed to a cycle of hatred and retaliation. Peace is only possible when one side is willing to stick to it even at the risk of being stabbed in the back.
nobody holds their principles so highly that they won't discard them to safeguard their 2 year old child.
I absolutely hold my principles that highly. For example, if someone told me "you have to murder this other child or I'll kill your child", I wouldn't do that even if that meant my own child died (though I sure as hell would try to kill the attacker before that happened). Sometimes you have to uphold your principles no matter the cost to yourself or others. To do otherwise means you didn't actually have principles.
Now, if you said "most people don't actually hold the principles they claim to hold", I would absolutely agree with you. But there do exist people who live by inviolable principles, even if most people don't.
That is not what most people would call "invasion", no. It's bad behavior, but just because someone acts like a jerk in ways which involve people arriving in a country does not make it invasion.
Well said. At the end of the day, acting virtuously is good in and of itself. The fact that many people don't understand this any more is a key cause of decay in our society.
I couldn't begin to guess. I would certainly hope not, but given that people here are willing to make excuses for him it may be that most voters want him to.
A real meritocracy would have to weigh SAT scores by temperament and cultural values
That is by definition not a meritocracy.
It provides a sense of pride when beating the game. The fact that some people cannot beat the game but you can, is a potential source of pride. If you enable everyone to beat the game, it is gone.
This is, to be blunt, a character flaw and not a good argument against difficulty settings. If your sense of pride in your own accomplishments depends on others not being able to do it, that reflects pretty poorly on you.
I find your other arguments flawed as well (though I don't want to go point by point because I find that kind of obnoxious). I think that the "it doesn't affect you" argument for lower difficulty settings is correct, and that your arguments don't really counter it.
The reason theft is wrong is because you are depriving someone of their property, the use of said property, and indirectly the time and effort put into creating/obtaining that piece of property.
I disagree. Theft is wrong because taking something which doesn't belong to you is inherently wrong. As I said, that's why I don't consider the copying distinction salient.
Unless you hate yourself, hate your family, hate your people, you should want more of them, not less of them, in the future.
You're drawing this false dichotomy between "want more" and "want less". I would wager that the majority of people who don't want more of their people simply don't care if there are more or fewer, not that they want fewer.
Frankly I don't find your argument compelling either. Who gives a shit what future generations look like? I'll be dead, it's got nothing to do with me. I don't care if people who live after me share my values, and I don't really understand why anyone would.
I think one piece missing from your analysis which you need to factor in, is that scalpers distort the market through their actions. The very act of buying up tickets/GPUs/whatever means that there won't be enough to fulfill demand, which drives the price up. Even factoring that in, maybe the original sellers should charge more - but I think you need to account for that as well.
That said, the biggest problem people have with scalpers isn't some kind of desire for below market pricing. It's that scalpers are purely parasites. If Nvidia chooses to charge me $1000 for a graphics card, I can accept that they made it so they get to decide what they want to charge. I won't buy at that price, but I'm not mad. When a scalper buys up all the cards for $500 and then sells them for $1000, they are "solving" a problem of their own making. They are simply scum who want to profit off others without doing anything to deserve it. People would have just as much of a problem if you did this with literally any product, it isn't just luxury goods.
- Prev
- Next
No, it really does make everyone worse off. Not only have we now pardoned even more criminals who should be serving punishments for the things they did, Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.
Trump is perpetuating the cycle of badness and I refuse to accept bad reasoning like "oh well they do it too, turnabout is fair play" trying to justify it. I'm sick and tired of being caught in the crossfire between these people.
More options
Context Copy link