|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 30 2017 22:03 Excludos wrote:I'm kinda curious as to why his Twitter account hasn't been banned yet, as it's clearly in conflict with the ToS (and has been for a while). Oh yeah, I forgot, rules don't apply to that orangutan
as I hear it, twitter rarely enforces ToS violations against anyone, and far less often than there are violations.
and I can understand not wanting to ban the President. (they also probably make a lot of money off it somehow, i forget how twitter's monetization model works)
|
Afaik Twitters monetization model doesn't work at all.
|
Twitter, and to a lesser extent Facebook, are just hollowed out companies fronting as solid business models. I'd be surprised if even half of the users they say they have are active let alone real. The last thing they would do is ban a popular figure and user of their service.
|
On November 30 2017 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:
Also, I am really fucking amused, in a cynical way, that Danglars and xDaunt are brushing off the sort of civil unrest that results from wealth inequality as "issues derived from jealousy." I mean, sure, poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry so that their children don't have to are probably jealous if they walk past an expensive restaurant and look at the well dressed people in there eating well, but is it wrong for them to be jealous? If they up and revolt, like the French Revolution, it's not because of "intrinsic human jealously." It's the emotion people justifiably feel when they become aware that there is enough food/housing/whatever to go around, but the super rich are hoarding so much of it that there's not enough left for everyone else.
You’re talking about the living standards of the poor, not wealth inequality. It’s a common mistake and an even more common dodge. If the top 1% get an extra billion, that doesn’t mean the chicken magically disappeared off the table of a poor person.
Good joke though transitioning to justifiable human jealousy in a question that didn’t dismiss it as a consideration, but laid it aside temporarily to see if other reasons existed.
|
|
|
I don't see why we would put aside jealousy when talking about whether or not wealth inequality is a bad thing. It's most certainly a thing, it's almost certainly going to be a thing indefinitely. The only reason that I can see to want to ignore it is that you have no counter argument but still want to say that wealth inequality has no ill effects.
|
On November 30 2017 23:46 ThaddeusK wrote:
I don't see why we would put aside jealousy when talking about whether or not wealth inequality is a bad thing. It's most certainly a thing, it's almost certainly going to be a thing indefinitely. The only reason that I can see to want to ignore it is that you have no counter argument but still want to say that wealth inequality has no ill effects.
That's pretty ridiculous. It's entirely possible to argue from an objective standpoint. There's also this thing called empathy when talking about people who have less money than yourself. I am not jealous because I want the lowest in our society to get an extra leg to stand on
|
The attack of "jealousy" is also criticizable because of how the situation came to be. It's not like we're looking at a situation that isn't in our favor and we're jealous about it. We're looking at a situation that is being changed to be progressively less and less in our favor.
I come to your house and I steal something from you that you value. You react against that? Well that's merely because you are jealous that I have it now, isn't it.
|
On November 30 2017 23:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:
Also, I am really fucking amused, in a cynical way, that Danglars and xDaunt are brushing off the sort of civil unrest that results from wealth inequality as "issues derived from jealousy." I mean, sure, poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry so that their children don't have to are probably jealous if they walk past an expensive restaurant and look at the well dressed people in there eating well, but is it wrong for them to be jealous? If they up and revolt, like the French Revolution, it's not because of "intrinsic human jealously." It's the emotion people justifiably feel when they become aware that there is enough food/housing/whatever to go around, but the super rich are hoarding so much of it that there's not enough left for everyone else. You’re talking about the living standards of the poor, not wealth inequality. It’s a common mistake and an even more common dodge. If the top 1% get an extra billion, that doesn’t mean the chicken magically disappeared off the table of a poor person. Good joke though transitioning to justifiable human jealousy in a question that didn’t dismiss it as a consideration, but laid it aside temporarily to see if other reasons existed.
Money is finite. A billion given to the 1% is a billion that could be given to the lowest 10% instead.
|
On November 30 2017 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:
I come to your house and I steal something from you that you value. You react against that? Well that's merely because you are jealous that I have it now, isn't it.
This is going to lead back to the "wealth redistribution is theft" argument again, and I'm not interested in seeing that happen again.
|
On November 30 2017 23:57 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:
I come to your house and I steal something from you that you value. You react against that? Well that's merely because you are jealous that I have it now, isn't it. This is going to lead back to the "wealth redistribution is theft" argument again, and I'm not interested in seeing that happen again.
I sympathize with the sentiment but it's always going to be central to this discussion.
|
Ewww
In 2001, the woman said, Mr. Lauer, who is married, asked her to his office to discuss a story during a workday. When she sat down, she said, he locked the door, which he could do by pressing a button while sitting at his desk. (People who worked at NBC said the button was a regular security measure installed for high-profile employees.)
The woman said Mr. Lauer asked her to unbutton her blouse, which she did. She said the anchor then stepped out from behind his desk, pulled down her pants, bent her over a chair and had intercourse with her. At some point, she said, she passed out with her pants pulled halfway down. She woke up on the floor of his office, and Mr. Lauer had his assistant take her to a nurse.
The woman told The Times that Mr. Lauer never made an advance toward her again and never mentioned what occurred in his office. She said she did not report the episode to NBC at the time because she believed she should have done more to stop Mr. Lauer. She left the network about a year later.
On Wednesday, the episode in Mr. Lauer’s office was reported to NBC News after the woman told her then-supervisor, who still works at the network. The woman said an NBC human resources representative had since contacted her. www.nytimes.com
|
NYT claims Tillerson out, Pompeo takes over.
Amd Tom Cotton gets Pompeos job as CIA director.
|
On November 30 2017 23:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 23:26 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:
Also, I am really fucking amused, in a cynical way, that Danglars and xDaunt are brushing off the sort of civil unrest that results from wealth inequality as "issues derived from jealousy." I mean, sure, poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry so that their children don't have to are probably jealous if they walk past an expensive restaurant and look at the well dressed people in there eating well, but is it wrong for them to be jealous? If they up and revolt, like the French Revolution, it's not because of "intrinsic human jealously." It's the emotion people justifiably feel when they become aware that there is enough food/housing/whatever to go around, but the super rich are hoarding so much of it that there's not enough left for everyone else. You’re talking about the living standards of the poor, not wealth inequality. It’s a common mistake and an even more common dodge. If the top 1% get an extra billion, that doesn’t mean the chicken magically disappeared off the table of a poor person. Good joke though transitioning to justifiable human jealousy in a question that didn’t dismiss it as a consideration, but laid it aside temporarily to see if other reasons existed. Money is finite. A billion given to the 1% is a billion that could be given to the lowest 10% instead.
But, but... i was told that the more you give to the rich the better off we would all be! Do you think they lied to us?
|
Conyers apparently went to the hospital due to stress related illness. He's recovering now.
|
On November 30 2017 23:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:
Also, I am really fucking amused, in a cynical way, that Danglars and xDaunt are brushing off the sort of civil unrest that results from wealth inequality as "issues derived from jealousy." I mean, sure, poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry so that their children don't have to are probably jealous if they walk past an expensive restaurant and look at the well dressed people in there eating well, but is it wrong for them to be jealous? If they up and revolt, like the French Revolution, it's not because of "intrinsic human jealously." It's the emotion people justifiably feel when they become aware that there is enough food/housing/whatever to go around, but the super rich are hoarding so much of it that there's not enough left for everyone else. You’re talking about the living standards of the poor, not wealth inequality. It’s a common mistake and an even more common dodge. If the top 1% get an extra billion, that doesn’t mean the chicken magically disappeared off the table of a poor person. Good joke though transitioning to justifiable human jealousy in a question that didn’t dismiss it as a consideration, but laid it aside temporarily to see if other reasons existed.
Poverty is defined by anyone who should be listened to on the subject (which, by the way, includes Adam Smith) as a relative phenomenon. When we say 'the amount of poverty in the United State is X%', that's because we are looking at X% of people being relatively poorer than the rest of their communities. They might still have chicken on the table, but they will be excluded economically and socially from various things and as such are defined as being in poverty.
|
On December 01 2017 00:25 mahrgell wrote:
NYT claims Tillerson out, Pompeo takes over.
Amd Tom Cotton gets Pompeos job as CIA director.
Can't help but worry Tillerson is firmly resisting North Korea and Trump isn't willing to give up on it.
|
On November 30 2017 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 14:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Perhaps in a world where there wasn't slavery and people starving with little/no access to clean drinking water you might have a point. But pretending that starving people in a world with billionaires isn't directly related to wealth inequality I have little faith there's a reasonable discussion to be had. The starving people happen to predominantly live in shitty countries with shitty social systems that are based on shitty values. Remember what I said earlier about nationalism being a good thing? It’s our defense from becoming like those shitty countries and it’s the method of eliminating their shitty values. Every time one of these poor and ass backwards countries starts to implement classical liberal, capitalist systems, they begin to accumulate wealth and the standard of living for the citizens improves. Take a look at Chile for example. We also have plenty of examples of countries that were doing well with Western systems, subsequently dismantled those systems, and utterly impoverished their people — like Zimbabwe. Do people really believe that these things are purely coincidental? Why are you equating Nationalism with liberal capitalism? That sounds like a really weird connection to make to me. And how does nationalism stop you from becoming a 3e world country?
Because I'm not equating liberal capitalism with nationalism. Like I have previously discussed, nationalism is the outward expression of a nation's (ie a people's) values. My point is that nationalism is important and even necessary in a multicultural world so that a nation can preserve itself. If a nation won't defend and promote its core values, no one else will, and the nation will not survive.
|
On December 01 2017 01:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2017 14:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Perhaps in a world where there wasn't slavery and people starving with little/no access to clean drinking water you might have a point. But pretending that starving people in a world with billionaires isn't directly related to wealth inequality I have little faith there's a reasonable discussion to be had. The starving people happen to predominantly live in shitty countries with shitty social systems that are based on shitty values. Remember what I said earlier about nationalism being a good thing? It’s our defense from becoming like those shitty countries and it’s the method of eliminating their shitty values. Every time one of these poor and ass backwards countries starts to implement classical liberal, capitalist systems, they begin to accumulate wealth and the standard of living for the citizens improves. Take a look at Chile for example. We also have plenty of examples of countries that were doing well with Western systems, subsequently dismantled those systems, and utterly impoverished their people — like Zimbabwe. Do people really believe that these things are purely coincidental? Why are you equating Nationalism with liberal capitalism? That sounds like a really weird connection to make to me. And how does nationalism stop you from becoming a 3e world country? Because I'm not equating liberal capitalism with nationalism. Like I have previously discussed, nationalism is the outward expression of a nation's (ie a people's) values. My point is that nationalism is important and even necessary in a multicultural world so that a nation can preserve itself. If a nation won't defend and promote its core values, no one else will, and the nation will not survive.
How does that lead to economic nationalism?
|
On November 30 2017 23:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 23:26 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:
Also, I am really fucking amused, in a cynical way, that Danglars and xDaunt are brushing off the sort of civil unrest that results from wealth inequality as "issues derived from jealousy." I mean, sure, poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry so that their children don't have to are probably jealous if they walk past an expensive restaurant and look at the well dressed people in there eating well, but is it wrong for them to be jealous? If they up and revolt, like the French Revolution, it's not because of "intrinsic human jealously." It's the emotion people justifiably feel when they become aware that there is enough food/housing/whatever to go around, but the super rich are hoarding so much of it that there's not enough left for everyone else. You’re talking about the living standards of the poor, not wealth inequality. It’s a common mistake and an even more common dodge. If the top 1% get an extra billion, that doesn’t mean the chicken magically disappeared off the table of a poor person. Good joke though transitioning to justifiable human jealousy in a question that didn’t dismiss it as a consideration, but laid it aside temporarily to see if other reasons existed. Money is finite. A billion given to the 1% is a billion that could be given to the lowest 10% instead.
Hold on a minute, buster. We're talking about going from one sentence about wealth inequality and the very next sentence is poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry. The inequality didn't make them hungry. That's like saying the ferrari parked next to you made your used honda civic get towed away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
