Spicy's plan for utopia

[Mrbeansman]

Seriously spicy go fuck yourself I don't know where you and Arus get off telling others to just shut up while you gamble with their livelihoods.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Gred in the same breath also thinks not everyone deserves to vote, meaning clearly some individuals are more important to a collective society than others. So the whole 1mil to save 1mil+1 comes off a little contradictory.

I'm not gonna find the receipts for that quote, though. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It was over me arguing against US hegemony. It's the sentiment and ideology rather than the conversation that is the focus.

Seriously spicy go fuck yourself I don't know where you and Arus get off telling others to just shut up while you gamble with their livelihoods.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Oh, eat shit. You are only concerned with your livelihood and halfhearted notions of compassion to pretend you are a good person. As I said, if you didn't hit the right niche if the ACA then you be up in arms. Instead you cry "protect my status quo!" Either way you'd be hopelessly be spinning your wheels.

[Salodin]

This shits at 223 posts and I haven't read any of it. Y'all having fun in here?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

It is at its core a fundamentally unfair topic for Spicy based on a false premise, and even given that handicap he has still engaged to an admirable degree. That said, his outlook is simply a reflection of Gred's; with one being "replace" the status quo no matter who suffers for it, and the other "protect" the same with the same caveat.

Both are as wrong as they are right and neither seem amenable to finding common ground.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

It is at its core a fundamentally unfair topic for Spicy based on a false premise, and even given that handicap he has still engaged to an admirable degree. That said, his outlook is simply a reflection of Gred's; with one being "replace" the status quo no matter who suffers for it, and the other "protect" the same with the same caveat.

Both are as wrong as they are right and neither seem amenable to finding common ground.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

ty for summing it up

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

at least gred is well-read in his sociopathy

[Gredival]

Gred in the same breath also thinks not everyone deserves to vote, meaning clearly some individuals are more important to a collective society than others. So the whole 1mil to save 1mil+1 comes off a little contradictory.

I'm not gonna find the receipts for that quote, though. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1) Equality as a person deserving of life and rights is different from equality as an individual possessed of a certain caliber of intelligence that should entitle them to political decision making (which could include voting depending on the political system, or is an argument against egalitarian forms of democracy).

2) The utilitarian 1M vs. 1M+1 calculus is presumed on all other things equal. If you ever know conditions that disprove the "all other things equal" then obviously you weigh that in the decision making. Like if you know that the 1M side has the person who is going to cure cancer and will effectively save billions of saves over history, you would kill the other side in order to save the scientist.

[Gredival]

It is at its core a fundamentally unfair topic for Spicy based on a false premise, and even given that handicap he has still engaged to an admirable degree. That said, his outlook is simply a reflection of Gred's; with one being "replace" the status quo no matter who suffers for it, and the other "protect" the same with the same caveat.

Both are as wrong as they are right and neither seem amenable to finding common ground.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

The key difference is that I have identified a win condition (the greatest good) and have presented a falsifiable premise to judge that win condition (maintenance of American hegemony preserves the optimal amount of life and the highest quality of life compared to any likely transition orders)

I'm "right" because I win on body count. He can present/defend a metric from which to judge the two models other than body count, or he needs a geopolitical argument so to how a transition can take place and why it would result in a preferable world.

[Spicyryan]

It is at its core a fundamentally unfair topic for Spicy based on a false premise, and even given that handicap he has still engaged to an admirable degree. That said, his outlook is simply a reflection of Gred's; with one being "replace" the status quo no matter who suffers for it, and the other "protect" the same with the same caveat.

Both are as wrong as they are right and neither seem amenable to finding common ground.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

Better a witty fool, than a foolish wit, as they say. I wouldn't say the outlooks are reflections, but your sentiment is all the same, I suppose. Thanks for the credit nonetheless.

I may not be educated, intellectual, or well read; frankly not read at all. Despite that, I have had a somewhat less than typical life, and perhaps the most important thing I have learned is how to observe the flow of things, and defer to others far more educated on a matter. As a deeply skeptical individual, I don't need to find the answer if it already exists. I only need to make sure it can survive scrutiny. Thus, I believe I am falling in the direction better suited towards compassion, democracy, and the virtues we speak of, but often end up only being hollow rhetoric.

Now, equity and equality are not the domain of intellectuals. Exploitation and abuse not beyond the understanding of even the most layman among us. I may not be able to articulate well enough nor posses the words to defend it. However, I can tell the right sort, and that is enough. Capitalism can not provide these things unless you don't scrutinize it and buy into the self-serving rhetoric spread through the population.
To be a socialist is simply to declare that we can do better than capitalism and that is the direction of improvement. The whole "explain your utopia we will all take turns shooting at" doesn't matter. You will notice that I haven't even used the C word either.

It's easy enough to point out the abuses of Capitalism. Which is why I do it, besides it being the "right" thing to do. Even a fool such as myself can look at something like Flint and stick to the most basic reality. While exposing myself for attempting to avoid reductionism. So, I'll gladly be the fool because then it's an equal playing field even if I don't deliver the "gotchas".
Advocating for capitalism and US hegemony to ensure it domineers and destroys. Doesn't make you an intelligent person with an educated option. It makes you a selfish cunt who creates a narrative that suits their privileges they don't care to give up despite how others needlessly pay the price.

[Gredival]

Advocating for capitalism and US hegemony to ensure it domineers and destroys. Doesn't make you an intelligent person with an educated option. It makes you a selfish cunt who creates a narrative that suits their privileges they don't care to give up despite how others needlessly pay the price.

No it makes you a person who can count and weigh consequences and figure out which world is better when you realize that a global catastrophe (the collapse of the liberal international order) that ALSO impacts the people that capitalism exploits is net worse for everyone.

Try again.

[NynJa]

To be a socialist is simply to declare that we can do better than capitalism and that is the direction of improvement. The whole "explain your utopia we will all take turns shooting at" doesn't matter.

lmao what the hell

"Socialism is better than capitalism, but dont ask why because it doesnt matter, just trust me"

You think were all taking turns shooting at it? Were not making those holes, they're already there, were just pointing them out.

[Spicyryan]

No it makes you a person who can count and weigh consequences and figure out because you can figure out that a global catastrophe (the collapse of the liberal international order) that ALSO impacts the people that capitalism exploits is net worse for everyone.

Try again.

Try again? You might as well be arguing for the end of monarchy to be a catastrophe, lol.

How do you figure that if the neoliberal order fell it be worse for the exploited?
Would Cuba or Iran or Venezuela or Nicuraga etc not being blockaded make it worse? Would the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Latin American in order to install brutal dictators for the sake of profit make it worse? Essential oils in Somalia? How many examples of the privileged companies raping the "third world" need to be given that clearly do not benefit in the arrangement of exploitation in the status quo?
How about domestically? Health Insurance Companies? Cancer Alley in Mississippi? Come on, I am not going to sit here listing every random example.

[Krandor]

To be a socialist is simply to declare that we can do better than capitalism and that is the direction of improvement.

This is so naive and misguided it's almost adorable

[Mrbeansman]

Its right up there with "sure you'll lose your ability to pay the bills but trust me it will be a better world with black jack and hookers."

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

This is so naive and misguided it's almost adorable

Go ahead, you don't generally say much. Take a turn.

Its right up there with "sure you'll lose your ability to pay the bills but trust me it will be a better world with black jack and hookers."

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Wut...?

Socialism is when you can't pay your bills, but get hooker and black jack. Is there whiskey too?

[Mrbeansman]

Go ahead, you don't generally say much. Take a turn.



Wut...?

Socialism is when you can't pay your bills, but get hooker and black jack. Is there whiskey too?

lmao what the hell

"Socialism is better than capitalism, but dont ask why because it doesnt matter, just trust me"

You think were all taking turns shooting at it? Were not making those holes, they're already there, were just pointing them out.

Was responding to this not my fault when like 4 new post pop up while I'm typing.

And again watching you completely toss aside the cost of the transition to your new world order again and again is exhausting. But I get it for you either no one should be suffering or everyone should.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Was responding to this not my fault when like 4 new post pop up while I'm typing.

And again watching you completely toss aside the cost of the transition to your new world order again and again is exhausting. But I get it for you either no one should be suffering or everyone should.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Lol it doesn't change your statement being nonsensical.

Suffering is inevitable, but your adversity to seemingly any transition is really something.

It's not "my world". I take the stance that reform only goes half way and can not protect it's own gains. I could be advocating for capitalism and it be the same concept. I'm just upfront about death being a part of life and struggle.

[NynJa]

Lol it doesn't change your statement being nonsensical.

.

[Spicyryan]

.

Captain Underpants.

[Mrbeansman]

Lol it doesn't change your statement being nonsensical.

Suffering is inevitable, but your adversity to seemingly any transition is really something.

It's not "my world". I take the stance that reform only goes half way and can not protect it's own gains. I could be advocating for capitalism and it be the same concept. I'm just upfront about death being a part of life and struggle.

So people who have found happiness and stability should just surrender it for a slim chance of better world?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk