no maCARONS not maCRONS

Stephen Fry blasphemy probe dropped after gardaí fail to find 'substantial number of outraged people'
I love my country. That last bit is just the best

I was just at a private conservation ground that gets about 1.6 million dollars of income from private donors from this state alone. Sort of deflates the argument that it's impossible to protect the environment without the government.

Madvillain wrote: 2v6e3b

macron kits are pretty nice

As long as its not puma lul

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

I was just at a private conservation ground that gets about 1.6 million dollars of income from private donors from this state alone. Sort of deflates the argument that it's impossible to protect the environment without the government.

my uncle joe saw anti-overfishing regulations get set in place by law one time so that sort of deflates your argument that you can privately protect the environment (which largely takes place on gov't-owned land)

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

my uncle joe saw anti-overfishing regulations get set in place by law one time so that sort of deflates your argument that you can privately protect the environment (which largely takes place on gov't-owned land)

Wow did the government really set rules about what you can do on its land? Obviously if that land were privately owned the owners would let anyone come and fish until there was nothing left, because people don't care about their property or its value (only the government does).

wait, do you not believe that public property should exist? I'd rather not have to pay a tollbooth for every 100m I walk on the street my dude

I beleive that generally individuals use their property better and more efficiently than the government does.

You probably don't like waiting two hours in congested traffick either, but due to the economic calculation problem, it's impossible for central planners to allocate resources as efficiently as in a market pricing system, thus the supply of road infastrsucture doesn't meet up with demand. Paying for tolls isn't much of a problem in our current day, it can be done electronically, by a specific licence, payed by the property owners etc.

In other news, our "Liberal" party has finally dropped any pretense of austerity and launched a massive spending and taxing campaign, but it's OK because it's "good debt".

Efficiency generally doesn't mean good for anyone but the owner, lmfao

embrace

sagiri

I just think you put far too much faith in private ownership to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than government ownership. In some ways it can be better, in some ways worse, most people understand and agree with that concept. Where do you get the idea that privatised ownership of resources would be so *significantly* better?

Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?

B1rd has said in the past that he would absolutely having everything, including Police and Fire Departments, being privately owned.

How can we improve capitalism without exposing ourselves as filthy leftists?

I'm procrastinating the act of procrastinating

Endaris wrote: 6j5f7

How can we improve capitalism without exposing ourselves as filthy leftists?

cuz fuck leftists

kai99 wrote: 6o576w

embrace

sagiri

Endaris wrote: 6j5f7

How can we improve capitalism without exposing ourselves as filthy leftists?

you cant

just be leftist tho

Endaris wrote: 6j5f7

How can we improve capitalism without exposing ourselves as filthy leftists?

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

I just think you put far too much faith in private ownership to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than government ownership. In some ways it can be better, in some ways worse, most people understand and agree with that concept. Where do you get the idea that privatised ownership of resources would be so *significantly* better?

Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?

Argumentum ad populum.

The police force is one of the things that could most benefit from privitisation. Private security and police are generally cheaper, more effective, and less prone to police brutality. This is because they are subject to competition, thus companies are strongly incentivies to provide the best product so they get the contracts, and employees are strongly incentivised to provide quality labour so they get promoted and don't get fired. This is in contrast to public police which are pretty much guarenteed income no matter how poor or ineffectual at driving down crime they are, and police officers can get away with anything short of bloody murder with the only consequnce being a short time on payed leave or a switch to an anministrative role.

Mahogany wrote: 4pak

just be leftist tho

that's like the most cancerous thing after the cancer itself

why would you become one

right is right

right is literally right

right is cancer

some entities definitely shouldn't be run to turn a profit, such as a prison system.

Prison is a place where money should be invested for resocialization programs, pertaining to education and trades.

Does a private company have an interest in providing opportunities to prisoners to kickstart a better life for them? Clearly they don't, because its not as profitable as say.. to just make a deal with a company from the outside and let people work for below min wage in prison - without any focus on improving their situation.

But is that really to the best of society?

Mahogany wrote: 4pak

right is cancer

and the three above you are also cancer

Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27

Clearly they don't, because its not as profitable as say.. to just make a deal with a company from the outside and let people work for below min wage in prison - without any focus on improving their situation.

Nevermind the fact that actually reforming these prisoners would actively damage their income. It's in their best interest to have as many prisoners as possible, so you bet they're going to do all they can to keep prisoners from reintegration into society, and try all they can to keep them locked up as long as possible.

Ra
Ra
Rasputin

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

Argumentum ad populum.

Only you would link this in response to "Most people can see that there are pros and cons" lol

also, Mahogany's point is interesting, considering that prisoner slavery is legal in the US, which has a notoriously awful prison system/high re-offender rates. Prisons in some European companies are "luxurious", and guess what, they end up reforming people a lot better.

But those just wouldn't be profitable, now, would they? Sure, they benefit society overall, but there's no way a private prison would shell out all that money to improve people's well-being if they didn't have to. This is the core reasoning behind "Private doesn't necessarily mean good"- profitability isn't necessarily maximum benefit for society overall, far from it, and generally leads to massive inequality until things escalate to the point where the rich are overthrown in revolution.

Same applies for when states misuse their power in general. Privatization offers no more protection from this. "Competition exists therefore the system will become perfect in order to survive" isn't a valid argument when competition can't necessarily exist for everything.

A private police force would be fucking retarded for a few reasons, namely the fact that you could just pay them as much as they wanted and get off of any crime scot-free. Especially true for large businesses that commit crimes on massive scale. They already do to some extent, but privatization of the police would essentially mean that instead of having a police force, you'd just end up with a bunch of henchmen of whichever corporations are the richest. How could you see that coming when you made your initial argument?

How about we talk about Ajit Pai and the net neutrality stuff in the US right now

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

I think I'm gonna be sick

Zain Sugieres wrote: 2n3vj

How about we talk about Ajit Pai and the net neutrality stuff in the US right now

okay I'm definitely gonna be sick

is that article even reliable?

But it does sound plausible.

RoseusJaeger wrote: x175n

is that article even reliable?

But it does sound plausible.

You can confirm it for yourself by clicking the link provided in it and seeing the massive list of bot comments, yes

ah

Mahogany wrote: 4pak

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?

B1rd has said in the past that he would absolutely having everything, including Police and Fire Departments, being privately owned.

Your morbid attachment to B1rd is hilarious

He's been ignoring you for months you just keep mentioning him in 3/4 of the posts you make here

If b1rd stopped being a retard I'd have much less reason to point out how retarded he is

Mahogany wrote: 4pak

If b1rd stopped being a retard I'd have much less reason to point out how retarded he is

amen

Mahogany wrote: 4pak

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

Would you also a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?

B1rd has said in the past that he would absolutely having everything, including Police and Fire Departments, being privately owned.

Having the military privately owned without a government backed military would be a disaster.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

I love these. The recurring taco truck is honestly the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzbusRK ... .be&t=6m2s

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

Only you would link this in response to "Most people can see that there are pros and cons" lol

also, Mahogany's point is interesting, considering that prisoner slavery is legal in the US, which has a notoriously awful prison system/high re-offender rates. Prisons in some European companies are "luxurious", and guess what, they end up reforming people a lot better.

But those just wouldn't be profitable, now, would they? Sure, they benefit society overall, but there's no way a private prison would shell out all that money to improve people's well-being if they didn't have to. This is the core reasoning behind "Private doesn't necessarily mean good"- profitability isn't necessarily maximum benefit for society overall, far from it, and generally leads to massive inequality until things escalate to the point where the rich are overthrown in revolution.

Same applies for when states misuse their power in general. Privatization offers no more protection from this. "Competition exists therefore the system will become perfect in order to survive" isn't a valid argument when competition can't necessarily exist for everything.

A private police force would be fucking retarded for a few reasons, namely the fact that you could just pay them as much as they wanted and get off of any crime scot-free. Especially true for large businesses that commit crimes on massive scale. They already do to some extent, but privatization of the police would essentially mean that instead of having a police force, you'd just end up with a bunch of henchmen of whichever corporations are the richest. How could you see that coming when you made your initial argument?

America vs Scandinavia isn't a good example of Capitalism vs Socialism as it's made out to be. Scandinavian countries have far less crime, a homogenous white population. Nationalise the prisons if you want, but try implementing the same policies and the same level of funding per prisoner and you're gonna be in for a rough time, probably bankrupt the nation.
Who do you think funds the prisons in America? The taxpayers via the government. It's not a free market system at all, its just another example of the unholy matrimony of big government and corporate interests. The government makes a whole load of laws to put innocent people in jail, the jail benefits and receives funding increases for the extra prisoners, and in turn the prisons fund the campaigns of the politicians. The "war on drugs" is the best example of these policies to increase prison populations, over 50% of prisoners are in there because of drug-related offenses. 86% of prisoners are in there because of victimless crimes. That's 86% of prisoners who are in jail to pad the pockets of a few select people. It's nothing to do with any fundamental flaws of Capitalism, it's all to do with the fundamental flaws of the state and the perverse incentives offered to the private sector by the state. America suffers these problems more than these small European countries because it's bigger and more centralised.

And who are you to say in what ways the private sector can make profit? If you could do that you should be a billionaire by now. If the ones who were directly funding the prisons were the ones who had a vested interest in their effectiveness, the community, then the prisons in turn would respond to that incentive by trying to provide the best reformation rates at the lowest prices. In fact, I doubt that locking people in a cage for years in the most effective means of deterring undesirable behaviour, I think prisons should be relegated to incarcerating people who post a real physical threat to people, like murderers and rapists. Voluntary economic penalties and ostracisation are likely better and cheaper deterrents.


Saying that the unregulated free market leads to inequality and revolution is nothing but a socialist fantasy. If you look at the French revolution, it was caused by the decadent aristocracy, nothing to do with the free market. The free market based on private property rights and Capitalism has been the single greatest thing to improve the human condition. Socialist are just hangers on from intellectuals of the industrial revolution when certain things did create inequality, and when there was a very low GDP per capita, but since then the progress of industry has made it so even the "poor" in the West live like kings compared to a few centuries ago. The free market did that, not government, not socialism; the way to improve the lot of the poor is the innovate production and increase wealth for everyone. Socialist policies are nothing but economic populism and decrease the net wealth for everyone, however they are implemented because the overwhelming majority of people are short sighted and don't know economics, they don't vote for the best long-term policies, they vote for their own short-term gain.

And socialism isn't just bad for the economy, it's one of the greatest threats to freedom and liberty. Nothing else has caused as much death and tragedy in the recent era as the idealism of socialism. The fact is that economic freedom and personal freedom are intrinsically related. The state claws its way to power under the pretense of benevolence. Trust the Left to overlook the ones with the guns and the armies and demonise the people trying to sell you iphones and burgers.
Not that wealth distribution is inherently bad, but it should be voluntary. Using coercion to steal someone's money is not moral, and the ends don't justify the means.


Now I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, but no the "the corporations will take power" argument is not something new. It's nothing but an knee-jerk reaction without any actual real consideration. If a corporation can lose millions of dollars from one video of security dragging a man out of a plane, then having henchmen beating people up is going to definitely be bad publicity. Corporations are not self-sufficient entities, they rely on voluntary trades from millions of people. People will not trade with entities trying to kill them. There is plenty of competition on the free market to make any company, private police or whatever, extremely conscious of public image. Even if some corporations did try and take power like this, and let's say that there were no economic consequences somehow, they still wouldn't have the manpower or resources to take on the whole of the rest of society, who have their own private security and their own guns. Private citizens are as much, or larger, a consumer of security than big business, from the security company's point of view it makes no sense to marginalise your biggest consumer base. Violent conflict is extremely unprofitable and almost certainly ruinous, there is no logical reason to assume that just because of privatisation of the police that corporations would engage in such an activity.

This is what a privatised police force would look like:

hahahahahahaha

So, why haven't mods renamed this thread into "ITT: We post political shit"?

That's pretty much what it is called though

Mara wrote: 1293c

So, why haven't mods renamed this thread into "ITT: We post political shit"?

because political shit still falls under the umbrella of the current title

when this thread was about actual shitposting and not politics?

There is a difference between shitposting 3 years ago and shitposting now. The current shitposters don't even know how to make ordinary shitposts, let alone quality ones.

Aurani wrote: k3n52

There is a difference between shitposting 3 years ago and shitposting now. The current shitposters don't even know how to make ordinary shitposts, let alone quality ones.

t/201618

These were fun times

Mara wrote: 1293c

So, why haven't mods renamed this thread into "ITT: We post political shit"?

But politics are not funny, nor interesting

That thread was a treasure

doppelganger got ranked, finally

Aurani wrote: k3n52

There is a difference between shitposting 3 years ago and shitposting now. The current shitposters don't even know how to make ordinary shitposts, let alone quality ones.

Teach us the ways, oh shitty one

Mara wrote: 1293c

So, why haven't mods renamed this thread into "ITT: We post political shit"?

*triggered*

no one cares about shitposting but everyone loses their mind over a few political posts

can i post hentai

can i post drama

but why

ummm

fuck me i didnt ask for new page

oh damn whos that

a cute anime girl who's disappointed in your shitposting

i knew it

i suggest deviating from politics talk

by talking about how many genders there are

That IS politics talk, Caradine

Modern psychology science shit says that since gender is socially constructed, there's no real point asking "how many there are". Non-binary people exist, so it should moreso be acknowledged as a spectrum.

Most people are happy to identify as entirely male/female but you could go deeper into "masculine and feminine" percentages or something if you really wanted to. It doesn't matter very much though

You are either male or female, empirically determined by your biology. Just because there is a girly man or a manly girl does not justify the idea of "non-binary" people or a "spectrum" of genders.

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

You are either male or female, empirically determined by your biology. Just because there is a girly man or a manly girl does not justify the idea of "non-binary" people or a "spectrum" of genders.

Interesting denial of psychology there because your feelings don't want it to be true LUL

I like how gender is only a 1d spectrum from male to female, further emphasising the point that theres only two genders

If you can come up with a second axis thst is devoid of simple combinations if male and femsle thatd be great

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

Interesting denial of psychology there because your feelings don't want it to be true LUL

Are you somehow trying to appropriate the right-wing argument by projecting your own own left-wing irrationalities? I'm talking about biology, you're talking about psychology which is the most feels based, least objective "science" there is. True it's about psychology, which another way of saying would be that the recent social trend of creating arbitrary classifications of gender thought up by deluded people is in their minds. People may show a broad range of behavior that may be atypical of their sex, but it's completely irrelevant to the concept of biological sex, and no that's not going to make me buy into the whole postmodernist feminist dogma about gender fluidity.

what

But, but, but I identify as a Krensenf Delikat (ohne zusatz von konservierungsstoffen) and no one here can tell me otherwise.

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

Are you somehow trying to appropriate the right-wing argument by projecting your own own left-wing irrationalities? I'm talking about biology, you're talking about psychology which is the most feels based, least objective "science" there is. True it's about psychology, which another way of saying would be that the recent social trend of creating arbitrary classifications of gender thought up by deluded people is in their minds. People may show a broad range of behavior that may be atypical of their sex, but it's completely irrelevant to the concept of biological sex, and no that's not going to make me buy into the whole postmodernist feminist dogma about gender fluidity.

You seriously think psychology isn't science, or what? Nobody was talking about biological sex, by the way.

The DSM-V explicitly acknowledges that some people identify as nonbinary on the spectrum of gender, and that in itself is not a mental disorder. That's a collaborative work created by American psychologists to help diagnoses. Saying these people's work is meaningless delusion is just absurd and betrays how you'd rather ignore science in order to fit your own clearly biased worldview.

Baited, but

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

You are either male or female, empirically determined by your biology. Just because there is a girly man or a manly girl does not justify the idea of "non-binary" people or a "spectrum" of genders.

Would it be fine if the very specific term "gender identity" was used in that context?

Because if the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and it's not either "having a certain feeling overrides your biological sex" (chaotic good) or "you cannot have more than 2 feelings" (chaotic evil), then it seems like people are just arguing about the definition of the word without even noticing it, and not about the underlying subject...

I don't mean this thread, or you specifically, but I notice some people be like:

,,There are two genders because biology!" well, i know what you're talking about and you're right...

then someone else comes in and says:

,,There are infinite or whatever else genders because psychology!" well, i know what you're talking about and you're right...

Then they start arguing and all I can think is "how is this possible?"

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

I'm talking about biology, you're talking about psychology

I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that without using the same set of rules (input) you can end up with completely different results (output).
Not push my own narrative i promise

Worth clarifying: "Gender" and "Biological sex" are two different things, which is why we use different words. You said that gender is determined empirically by biology, which isn't correct. Like I said, gender is a construct created by society.


Fun thing to consider: Masculinity and femininity are also socially constructed. Someone's idea of manliness in one society may be very different to the idea of manliness in another society, etc.

what the fuck hi im kai. i might have a dick or not inside my pants unless u open them and check so its called schrodinger's dick.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

Worth clarifying: "Gender" and "Biological sex" are two different things, which is why we use different words. You said that gender is determined empirically by biology, which isn't correct. Like I said, gender is a construct created by society.


Fun thing to consider: Masculinity and femininity are also socially constructed. :thinking:

It's able i think just because of how many people use the word "gender" as the substitute to sex. I tried to be specific here - if some make that differentiation, and some do not, that's the misunderstanding that I was talking about

kai99 wrote: 6o576w

what the fuck hi im kai. i might have a dick or not inside my pants unless u open them and check so its called schrodinger's dick.

haha SIKE

niggas be WYLLIN

Madvillain wrote: 2v6e3b

niggas be WYLLIN

rip

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

a few political posts

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

You seriously think psychology isn't science, or what? Nobody was talking about biological sex, by the way.

The DSM-V explicitly acknowledges that some people identify as nonbinary on the spectrum of gender, and that in itself is not a mental disorder. That's a collaborative work created by American psychologists to help diagnoses. Saying these people's work is meaningless delusion is just absurd and betrays how you'd rather ignore science in order to fit your own clearly biased worldview.

Go on crying about "ignoring science" and relentless accusations of "bias". It's all falling on deaf ears. You left wingers like to pretend that science is on your side, and that you are the "intellectual ones", but you can't claim that other people are "denying science" when there is no empirical proof whatsoever of your gender ideology. Psychology is hardly a science because of a distinct lack of replicable results and a doctrine that shifts radically from one decade to the next. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness until it was changed completely arbitrarily because of changing public opinion, just like the recent trends in psychology have been influenced by public trends, and it's still highly controversial within the scientific community and saying it's not a mental illness does not mean the scientific community s it. Whether or not people identify as "non-binary" are classified as having a mental illness is completely irrelevant, "mental illness" is an arbitrary classification as it is, and I never said those people had a mental illness, just that they were deluding themselves with fiction.

Despite what you have said, gender roles throughout every society have been extremely similar in numerous ways, because biological sex determines behavioural traits to a large degree, this warrants gender roles for the better functioning of society. However the different genders in feminist theory have no distinct biological basis, they are just arbitrary labels created by people so they can feel like special snowflakes. Shaving my head, cutting off my balls and calling myself "non-binary" is no different to dying my hair black, giving myself piercings and calling myself a goth.


Regardless, I don't really care for silly debates like this, I'm much more interested in economics and philosophy which are much more relevant to our daily lives.

If you're going to it outright that what I'm saying is "falling on deaf ears" as well as clearly demonstrating your lack of respect for psychology as a science, as well as disregarding any valid arguments relating to gender that disagree with your own, I don't know, man.

Gender identity isn't exactly controversial in this field, but I think you're probably just incredibly willingly ignorant on the subject. Does it bother you personally, or something..?

If you're not willing to look into the science behind gender identity then you should probably avoid making any bold statements on the subject in the first place. It's a worthless statement to make when you're neither interested in an intellectually honest argument nor open to any new ways of thinking about the subject.

Just to let you know, though, the "68 genders" or whatever is not scientific. People don't try to make arguments for the many genders of queer feminist theory as being rooted in biology, they're more understood as being a means of conveying ever-more-specific feelings of gender or sexual identity. It's complicated and honestly I think a lot of it is INCREDIBLY pedantic, but I'm just telling you a summary of how it works here.



edit: also VERY IMPORTANT THING that I need to say- gender identity etc isn't "purely 100% sociological" nor is it "purely 100% biological".

I never said that, I said your incessant accusations and insults are falling on deaf ears. Calling me ignorant isn't an argument. Calling me intellectually dishonest isn't an argument. I'm less interested in what you claim the supposed science says, what are valid arguments according to your own opinion, I only care if you can definitively disprove any of my statements. As far as I'm concerned what Caradine said is correct, and the whole argument is about interpretations and semantics.

You two need to go back and reread the things you wrote. Instead of actually discussing gender issues, you've immediately switched to bashing each other and weaving the arguments around just to fit the fact that you, under all that shit, simply want to insult one another.

You'll cease that bullshittery if you have any sense of dignity, as the previous page and a half has been nothing but embarrassment after embarrassment.
Don't fall on the same level as Blitzfrog, Madvillain, Enetro etc.

bosnia and herzegovina

What did I do now

Aurani wrote: k3n52

the previous page and a half has been nothing but embarrassment after embarrassment.

which is why we will talk about GPUs now i'm sorry

lol wrote: k2335

bosnia and herzegovina

Madvillain wrote: 2v6e3b

What did I do now

Aurani wrote: k3n52

You two need to go back and reread the things you wrote. Instead of actually discussing gender issues, you've immediately switched to bashing each other and weaving the arguments around just to fit the fact that you, under all that shit, simply want to insult one another.

I completely disagree. I've said a lot of facts about gender which might educate people who haven't thought about that kind of stuff before, or haven't looked into it, that people can benefit from regardless of whether or not I've been mad at B1rd for the things he's been saying.

I it there was some misunderstanding regarding the words "gender" and "sex", but I cleared that up in one of my posts for a reason. Seems a little unfair to act as if we've been on the same level of intellectual dishonesty here.

Only read the last page but I have to agree with Aurani that it looked like you were both desperately trying to win an argument instead of having a debate/discussion.

I'm not the one who always throws around accusations and ad hominems, though I always get a lot directed at myself.

Well, sorry that the main points of my post were overshadowed by that, then. I'll try to word things better some other time this subject comes up I guess

there's only one other person that can make it come up again

B1rd wrote: 4w393k

I'm not the one who always throws around accusations and ad hominems, though I always get a lot directed at myself.

(He actually is the one who does this)

there's only 1 gender

Zain Sugieres wrote: 2n3vj

there's only 1 gender

is it the polish gender

I refuse to believe that my Dulcet is anything other than a sentient onion.

is it because I make people cry, is that the joke there

Is raw onion ever used as part of a finished meal

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

Is raw onion ever used as part of a finished meal

Yes. In sandwiches and salads, there's usually uncooked red onion. Also, plenty of dishes require raw green onions as well

DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47

Is raw onion ever used as part of a finished meal

Yeah, as Dulcet pointed out, and it's disgusting

The joke here is that I love onions.

that actually made me blush

Zain Sugieres wrote: 2n3vj

there's only 1 gender

poles are a strange species

Kisses wrote: 53h3c

Zain Sugieres wrote: 2n3vj

there's only 1 gender

poles are a strange species

don't they put tomato sauce on top of their pizza? as a main pizza topping?