The Good Post Gallery

[Antonio the Sixth]

From what I can tell, Chafee has governed to the left of the Democratic Party. 

It would be hard, for any at least partially sane person, to avoid that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The validity of the argument is irrelevant, only whether or not it is capable of being disproven. A designer cannot be disproven by any experiment I can imagine, so it's not science.

Don't mistake that for a disbelief in God or a disbelief that God created humans, I believe both. But that's not science. I don't think science or anyone else apart from science can validly claim that all knowledge is scientific in nature and/or should be taught in science class. That's why we have other subjects and they convey truth and useful information in different ways.

Given the quandries that will arise from the situation, I do think a discussion on exactly what science is, what it tells us, and what it doesn't has a place in science class. Maybe a day on Karl Popper. Like it or not this issue has to be dealt with somehow in a science class because people come in with all sorts of ideas about the topic. But that doesn't make intelligent design science.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh God...

[Antonio the Sixth]

OLDIES FOR GOD'S SAKE STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD THANKS

[Antonio the Sixth]

Beautiful.

Kudos on Tik for staying polite - I lose all my self-control when faced with Wormyguy types.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dear wormyguy,

Thank you for your explanation of how to get rich. Unfortunately I never have good ideas, I don't have the money to enter exclusive universities, I don't want to fake getting along with rich people (or their daddies), don't have time to learn how to program an app because I'm busy trying not to be homeless, and I hate the smell of old people. In fact, I don't even want to be rich. I don't have the motivation or energy to start my own business, be my own boss, or even think of an idea to sell.

I just want to work eight hours a day and get paid more than what I need. I would be interested in buying a house someday, and I promise I don't waste my money. I don't think I should earn as much as those who have exclusive skills. I just want to be comfortable. I have just as much worth to society as the more intelligent, more socially apt, and in fact perhaps I'm better because I'm not cunning, ruthless, or greedy. We live in a first world country. Why should I needlessly suffer when there is plenty of money for everyone? Why should they benefit so many orders of magnitude more than me, doing my small part?

Yours truly,
Most people

Really one of the best posts ever on this forum.

[Antonio the Sixth]

TJ, use this thread instead: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175597.0

[Antonio the Sixth]

When I worked at Miami Subs, I was told what my pay was going to be before I was hired. I could take it or leave it. If it is a ridiculously unfair amount, I would not have taken the job to begin with. If I felt I was entitled to more pay from the manager or the owner, I would ask for it. They own the business, and they decide how much I am worth. If I don’t agree to the decision, I can leave. Nobody is forcing me or anyone else to work there.

What then? First of all, anyone should be thankful to have a job right now. I was lucky to have mine for three weeks before I was laid off due to the fact that the business could not support an additional employee as they originally thought. I got the job because I was the best man for it as long as it was going to exist, and I was and still am the only seventeen year old I know who had a job. Jobs are scarce among youth around the world, and I still got a job.  Jobs are scare for everybody right now. So everyone, whether it be the CEO of Miami Subs, or the line cook at store #8 in Boynton should be thankful to be working right now.

Your second paragraph simply serves to undermine your first. On the one hand we're all able to negotiate our employment conditions and just waltz off if we're not happy with them (and then be forced back into same poorly-paid positions by economic necessity) and then on the other hand openly admit the conditions are terrible for employment (mass unemployment and redundancies the norm) where any job is to be seen as a 'blessing'. Can't have it both ways.

For a business to just flat out not pay its workers when it promised them it would is a violation of the contract between employer and employee, and a violation of justice. So state intervention would be required, and would be deserved, in this situation. This function is one of the most important and crucial functions of justice.

In which case you accept that your rights, and wealth, are given to you by the state.

If anyone is picking and choosing what the state can and cannot do, it is you. The American Constitution lays a pretty basic argument about the intentions and purpose of government.  “Provide for the Common Defense”, “Secure the blessings of liberty”, etc. These are not buzzwords. These are the government’s functions. I don’t see anything that remotely suggests that government should guarantee that every man is paid a living wage for working as a cashier six hours a day three days a week (my average weekly schedule).

You speak as if a) the constitution is infallible, although you've given me no reasons why, and b) that it applies to more than the <5% of the world population it currently does. The state does what the population decides, and it seems you're quite happy for the state to provide x & y for things that benefit capitalism, but return with moral outrage at anything that doesn't. It's not credible.

What strawman arguments have you made? Well, let’s see…..

"had I been making up to that point", I said. I notice all the ones you listed where after you decided I was making strawmen.

No, most people work hard, and are just unfortunate enough to be in a position that only produces enough to generate small amounts of return profit. If the position was more productive, it could cover a higher wage.

Do you think football players who don't even play, but sit on a bench all game, for a sport - a form of entertainment - are more productive than the workers manufacturing, farming, delivering public services etc? I'd like to see your reasons why, or you accept the market works on neither productivity nor hard work.

If every single worker in the restaurant I work had been told they were no longer being paid, do you think some of them would continue to work? Or would all of them just walk out? My hypothetical situation did not just mean myself, but the entire collective staff.

You're moving the goalposts, my original scenario - to prove how much you depend on the state for your wealth - was the company in question would target you alone (in a bid to show how you the individual are powerless), and ensure others were fearful enough of their job they didn't dare to help out.

There is a HUGE difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism, and you know it.

Well I thought the main difference I see is that anarchism tends to acknowledge the power and coercion inherent in capitalism, whilst Libertarians conveniently choose not to. They both claim to be against the state (although it increasingly seems the former likes to pick and choose).

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a feminist, this is the pro gun myth that I absolutely detest the most out of all the others.

The answer is a whistle, because most rapes are acquaintance rapes (not Trayvon Martin jumping out of the bushes in New York's dark alley like in the movies), which means it's someone that I trust. Which means he'll be able take my gun away from me, or get it before I have.

The facts:
1. women living in a home with one or more guns were three times more likely to be murdered; for women who had been abused by their partner, their risk of being murdered rose fivefold if the partner owned a gun. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association)
2. women who purchased guns were 50% more likely to be killed by an intimate partner. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association)
3. In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check)
4. A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check)
5. One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check)
6. Women are far more likely to support gun control than men. The gender gap on this issue is far bigger than abortion. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/guns-gender-gap-polls.php)
7. Ask Hadiya Pendleton, Gabrielle Giffords, Christina Taylor Green, Jessica Ghawi, Rachel D'Avino, Victoria Soto, Dawn Hochsprung, etc. how guns made them better off and safer from MALE violence.

Oh right, the gun rights folks don't care about actual women.

Enjoy this empowered woman below.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Apologies in advance if I should be hijacking this thread. Abortion is indeed one of the most fascinating and complex human issues. Since it is not being discussed anymore in Germany since the 1980s, I use this opportunity to present my general perspective:

1.) Unplanned pregnancy is fundamentally affecting a woman's plans for life, and she must be given adequate opportunity to consider all available options and their consequences. These options include abortion (legal or not, it has always been and will most likely be in future an available option). Ideally, her family and her partner will assist her in decision making. In reality, however, the family may revert to moralistic attitudes, while the partner refuses to assume responsibility. Hence, society and politics need to provide opportunities for adequate counselling. Criminalisation does not help in this respect.

2.) I myself have in three cases (including my sister) been asked for advice, and I am convinced that no woman is taking an abortion decision lightly. To the opposite, they are probably more torn inside by that decision than most men can imagine [One of the three women asking me for advice committed suicide on the day of the planned abortion, after not showing up in the abortion clinic]. As such, life experience has convinced me that the decision for or against abortion is best placed with the prospective mother, and not with government.

3.) An abortion means substantial psychological and physiological stress. Returning again to personal experience, the two other women that asked me for advice each carried out abortion once, but ruled it out as an option afterwards. They are both proud parents of now already grown-up children, and will probably transmit their experience (in the case of my sister, a doctor herself, I am especially sure). Instead of discussing legal issues, people from both sides of the aisle would IMO be better advised to recognise and communicate the fact that abortion is not the convenient solution it appears to be.

4.)  Ultimately, we are talking about the moral conflict between an unborn's right to life, and  the mother's right to determine her own future. A difficult decision, which, as I said above, I see best placed with the mother. That decision has to be taken sooner or later. In the interest of the mother (and father), and of the unborn, I want to see it being taken as soon as possible. It may take a while to recognise the pregnancy, maybe more than eight weeks (two cycles). Discussion and decision-taking also need some time. but four to six weeks should be sufficient. As such, a time frame anywhere between nine and fifteen weeks from inception seems both necessary and adequate to me. Anything beyond that, however, would only extend the mother's moral conflict, and/or expose her to additional family or partner pressure. Does not help the mother, does not help the child (that is linked hormone-wise to the mother)!  

5.)  I am probably getting moralist here, but I believe that once you have decided to reproduce, you should embrace your child unconditionally. We did not even want to know the sex of our children. even though it could easily be determined during ultrasonic diagnostics (why take away some of the surprise?). If there are risks of deformation, consider them before you mate, or during the first months of pregnancy, but don't get into genetical engineering. The mother's future may be a legitimate reason for abortion, the child's properties are definitely not!

6.) On a side note: If this hasn't become obvious already - I believe every abortion is one too many. I just don't think government / the judiciary is the right instance to deal with the many questions involved. However, I also oppose any action that provides positive incentives for abortion, e.g. embryonic stem cell research, which creates a market for (and a revenue on) aborted foetuses.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Any post that is in response to Naso cannot be a good post, because Naso is not worth discussing with.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it could be interesting to have a foreign opinion about my country!

You should make this a poll. 

It is the only country in that region with which we have never had a war, and the only one with which we always have been on the same side during wars we always fought.  Our country owes its freedom to France, and vice-versa.  We are exactly the same kind of nation:  arrogant, we think ourselves God's gift to the world, just like the French do.  We think our culture should be adopted and think that anyone who doesn't adopt our culture simply doesn't understand it, just like the French do.  This, of course, puts us at odds.  For example, we cheer May 5, 1862 when North America rid itself of the French at the Battle of Pueblo.  Ask any Gringo about Cinco de Mayo.  It's one of the few foreign milestones that we celebrate here, and yet we fell in right behind the erstwhile French Empire after they were defeated by a bunch of hillbillies at Dien Bien Phu with our own costly Indochine involvement.  And we were defeated by those same hillbillies in much the same way. 

Liberty, Fraternity, Equality.  Sounds nice.  Much like the things we say we believe, but like the French, we have never achieved any of those things.

Two peas in a pod, our two nations.  Arrogant, stubborn, and God's gift to the civilized world.  It's no wonder that we make fun of each other so much.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, just as LB said, if this were a 250 pound man wearing a speedo, he would not have even been approached. The problem was that she did not fit the societal standard of what a woman should look like in a bikini. She wasn't disgustingly, oh-god-look-at-her-ribs thin. And that's a problem apparently. We're bringing up kids to think "fat is gross" instead of "some people like to eat or have metabolism problems and that's okay and it doesn't make them disgusting"

Just the same as we bring kids up to think "A woman is showing skin? Well she's just ASKING to get raped" instead of the revolutionary idea that a man should never ever ever under any circumstance ever attempt to have sex with a woman without her consent

This is a case of sexism because a woman must look a certain way in order to wear a type of swimsuit. A man just has to be wearing something and that's okay.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I was trying to get to 10,000 characters of kitty gifs, but I only got to 4278 before I got bored.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In this thread, like every other one about gender on this forum that devolves into guys arguing about why they don't have girlfriends, misses the quite simple truth: there's a difference between wanting to have sex with a girl (and having the confidence to say so) and treating all women like they're just walking pairs of tits. The former is a good thing, because, believe it or not, women actually like sex (I know, crazy right!? ), while the latter is obviously not.

I hate how every thread on this issue turns to posters' lack of success with women, although I guess it should be expected given the readership of this forum. But if you absolutely must debate this, the answer is really obvious. The men who have the most success with women aren't ones who live their lives in the he-man woman hater's club and venture out occasionally to collect a living f**ktoy, nor the ones who place women on a pedestal and talk about how they're so nice for not just wanting to have sex with them. It's those who understand that women are people and so are able to actually to just talk to them them without getting caught up in all this crap.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What a fun thread this is.

I think, perhaps, there is more pressure on women (particularly young women) to be a certain way, in terms of social skills, etiquette, interpersonal relationships, etc., and there is risk of exclusion from social groups (by both men and women) if a woman reveals herself to be a "nerd" or "geek" in terms of personality and interests (Men face that risk too, don't get me wrong, but I seriously doubt it's nearly as much of a stigma for men as it is for women). It's the same reason why engineering, sciences, mathematics, etc. are such sausage-fests. Of course, the sexism and misogyny and general trolling among groups of like-minded men don't help matters....

I also think, perhaps more of the women who are politically active are more interested in real-world, relevant political and social issues than they are in, say, reading about whether Robert Taft should have run for President in an alternate history timeline in 1952, or reading a manifesto of Cogendism or Communitarianism or whatever, or indeed, looking at the nuances of past and present election maps.

Most of this is just me speculating/thinking out loud, and should not be taken as assertions of fact.

...came here to post that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ideally people wouldn't 'hit on' one another (as such) at all, but it's usually possible to get an at least surface-level feel for behavior and perhaps interests after being in somebody's company for, depending on the person and situation, a few minutes to a few hours. Sometimes elements of a person's actual self code themselves in fairly immediately noticeable ways. There admittedly isn't always a terribly immediate or stark dividing line between this and the sort of aspects of physical appearance that make people superficially attractive to one another--the way one dresses and comports oneself, for instance, generally has some sort of bearing on what one is like as a person, as opposed to as a chunk of meat, and is usually as obvious as more immutable aspects of one's appearance if not more so. There's nothing inherently shallow about expressing an appreciation for or interest in someone's clothes or makeup.

tl;dr if you've been noticing someone for a significant portion of an afternoon or evening or what-have-you, you should start to have a reasonable if basic idea of what they're like, or at least what they act like. If not, why are you hitting on them?

[Antonio the Sixth]

That was beautiful, really.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Men are not "better at making deals and being slick" and women are not better at "reaching out to people and listening to others." These are social skills that are learned, not an inherent part of a person's DNA. Even more so is the proportion of men and women in powerful positions is a function of how society and culture are organized and not innate biological differences. It's no coincidence that in the 30 years after the feminist movement, the proportion of women in elected bodies in this country jumped from about nil to about 20 percent. Human biology didn't change, the organization of society did.

Men and women are not equal today. Men dominate the most powerful positions in society, earn more almost across the board for their work, and are more likely to be paid for their work, period. You say Congress should be fair to all. I agree. How is a Congress that is 78 percent male when we are only 49 percent of the population fair? Even when we men are well intentioned, even when we identify with women's rights like I do, we're going to miss a sh**tload of insight because we don't live in this world as women. It's a very different life experience.

It's no coincidence that women senators are taking the lead on sexual assault in the military. Or that it took a woman legislator (Wendy Davis) to galvanize the filibuster restricting women's reproductive rights. Or that Hillary Clinton was a women's right activist in the 1990's and still talks about it. All of us naturally see more clearly what touches them. That's why it's necessary (not sufficient, but necessary) to have people who's perspectives represent the issue at hand.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow.  That actually makes a lot of sense.

Indeed. Credit where it's due.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I should also mention that a lot of ignorant/absurd/horrible things that get said are often the result of obliviousness or ignorance rather than active malice, and I do think it's best to assume a lack of active malice from most everyone, most of the time- and furthermore, to realize that defensiveness regarding one's not-very-deeply-considered beliefs is both very common and still not a marker of active malice.  Of course, said defensiveness should be pointed out and challenged- but perhaps in a way that does not attempt to automatically taint the entire person as an HP?

I should probably remember this more often, myself.

Very true. And the last sentence applies to me as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Memphis is misogynist? When did he say/do/become this?

I've asked this before and got a less than satisfactory response.

(actually I can barely remember what the response was other than that there was one)

Ah dammit i'm gonna have to repost all of this

actually, i'll screencap my original post

[Antonio the Sixth]

If Cory's goals were simply to eradicated genetically linked maladies and diseases, I could sympathise with him somewhat.

What he fails to grasp is that genetically altering people would create its own set of problems with which he has no tools to combat.

Perfection in this physical sense is mostly relative and holes form as soon as you start to unify and eradicate anything. It also assumes that psychological and physical development is completely independent from nurture and experience. The way someone acts and is is far more important than what they look like.

It is also an innate aspect of humanity to seek partners genetically different from ourselves because the result of mating (a more diverse set of genes) increases the likelihood of survival. If broad shoulders were eradicated, broad shoulders may become attractive. The goalposts would continue to move forever further away from whatever we decided they ought to be right now.

But let's give in and say you've created the perfect human prototype to which all humans are manufactured (ugh). Have you then really reached a goal? Well, no, because even the perfect human sample is only perfect in regards to the present. A more perfect human would be capable of flight. An even "more" perfect being would be able to replicate itself without the same physical limitations as a human. Or perhaps a perfect human would feel no need to replicate as its time could be better spent further improving society or itself in whatever way. Suddenly what you've created has ceased to be human at all, and then you yourself are outdated.

It's rubbish is what it is. It's a dream that ruins itself when it seems about to come true. If I could make all food taste like chocolate, chocolate would become loathsome and would start to taste less sweet.

[Antonio the Sixth]

He defended Pol Pot. Automatic HP.

I know I shouldn't do this as this will probably turn out to be a waste of oxygen but the temptation is too strong... What's your opinion of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher?

If you really think that Apartheid South Africa and Pinochet's Chile (which were both INCREDIBLY awful places) are anywhere near as bad as Pol Pot's Cambodia, then you should seek psychiatric health.

But you'd presumably consider supporters of Apartheid South Africa "HPs" nonetheless, no?

Did I say anything about Pinochet's Chile?

I think you find I did not

Did I say anything about Apartheid South Africa?

I think you find I did not

So what was I referring to?

I was referring to your post on Pol Pot's Cambodia... you know the state that the US and UK constantly recognized and supported in the 1980s despite it being overthrown by Soviet backed Vietnamese forces in 1979. Yes, I was referring to that government.

(It's amazing to realize the extent to which this has been swept under the carpet - took me ages to find good links that weren't from obvious left-wing kook cites or John Pilger. But I repeat myself).

EDIT: Edu's already got there

No, but I assumed you were talking about SA and Argentina, because as I mentioned in response to Edu, the support for Khmer Rouge by right wingers was just a hollow, geopolitical act targeting the Vietnam-USSR backed regime, while Palme was defending the merits of Pol Pot's actual rule during a visit to Cuba in the mid seventies.

I'm not here particularly interested in defending Palme (except perhaps I will ask how do you know that his "support" was not likewise hollow? His statement was made on a state visit to Cuba ffs. As it happens, Sweden withdrew support from Democratic Kampuchea in the early 1980s before the US and UK governments did - 'hollow' or otherwise), what am I interested in is showing your nauseating political relativism and your ability to parrot tired tropes of right-wing thoughts as if you were wind-up computational machine which required only a postmodernist to come by an install a "right-wing Reaganite troll persona" algorithm into your cerebral cortex in order to function.

Anyway, it is interesting that you used the language of hollow and geopolitical. Ah yes, it was geopolitical - and therefore justifiable. And it was hollow and thus not really authentic. Therefore you argue that the US and UK wasn't real. Which I have no doubt is of great comfort to the thousands of Khmer who died during the Wars of the 1980s which were propagated in part by the actions of the US and the UK and their hollow geopolitical gestures in supporting the Khmer Rouge and continuing to recognize Pol Pot's regime as the legitimate government of the country. Similarly I'm sure they are outraged at what some Swedish Prime Minister said once on a state visit to a country on the other side of planet of which I suspect few Khmer have ever heard of and comments, on which I should add, seem to have had no consequences whatsoever and are thus not hollow, geopolitical gestures.

But yes, no doubt Palme was a horrible and terrible person for supporting the Khmer Rouge.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Personally, the fact that women are, in fact not equal anywhere in the world despite all of the efforts of the feminist movement is pretty obvious. Yes, there are issues- such as child custody, and education, life expectancy, and so on where women are favored over men, and these are important. And it's important that there are people who are working on them- but it makes sense that these people be men. After all, men are the most adversely affected by these issues, we are the ones who have the most stake and understanding there. So I understand why feminists, per se, don't work on these issues. And I think these exceptions are generally just that - they are still subordinate to the general kyriarchy of social relations, which men, (as defined by the kyriarchy itself - as are the whole concepts of masculine and feminine) are placed on a higher position than women. I would say it is less about men vs. women per se than analysis and social critique, in general. Which also extends to race, class, sexual orientation, disability, body and beauty standards, and so on. Actually, the older I get, the more firmly rooted I see that this hierarchy is in multiple ways.

tfw someone other than me or Nathan uses the term kyriarchy here

I'd be quite interested in learning what kyriarchy is (well, sure, I could read wikipedia, but whatever ).