War in the middle east and intervention debate

[misteraven]

14 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

I want to modify what I've said above as I wasn't articulate enough and it comes across as an attack on @misteravenand that's not what I was intending.

 

What I'm trying to point out is that we all have our biases - you could go through a number of my posts on this website and find the exact same thing I've laid at the feet of @misteraven. The point I am trying to make is that we all have biases, it is a fundamental element of the human condition, it helps us get through life without second guessing everything we do. My sentiment here is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater and that you can rise above it. I get concerned that the term MSM is used on this website as a way to undermine the credibility of whole positions or trains of thought on matters, and that is, to me, not the way to navigate the mine field of modern media.

 

Just as we need to recognise the biases in ourselves, we need to recognise the biases in the information we are given and if we are going to commit to a position, we should do the due dilligence of being skeptical and using critical throught to first challenge it and check our sources. To straight away assume that everything in the mainstream media is a manufactured position for a strategic end (other than speaking facts and searching for truth) is a bias in and of itself that serves no purpose but to push yourself into an intellectual corner.

 

@misteravenyou and I both have experience in this area and I certainly respect your knowledge in the communication of messages and, what is essentially corporate propaganda (as in marketing). I believe that gives you insight into how things work that many of us do not possess. However, I feel that your anger, as justified as it is, at the world of politics and corporatism feeds a bias in you that pushes you into extreme positions on some issues. I feel that the way you approach the media, immediately expecting the absolute worst, is not accurate and doesn't help you when seeking for truth. Expecting the worst is too far past skepticism and critical thought, for me.

 

That's what I was trying to say.

No doubt every person has a bias, but news was intended to be objective. That means at least making credible efforts to present facts, versus what we see, which is editorializing. Thing is, there was a time not long ago when editorials were preceded by bold identifiers that said, "opinion" or "editorial" and that is no longer the case. People don't want to think for themselves (general statement). We live in era where attention spans have been devolved to bite sized consumable content and engagement often requires sensationalist headlines to attain. News articles are no longer a presentation of fact and context, so that the reader can form their own opinion.

 

I can't speak for your references to Australian national news source, neither can I speak to the British ones as I dont read either. But as you've mentioned yourself about America's NPR, they bash Trump at every opportunity ands if you go back and look, they rarely if ever were critical of Obama. That's the definition of bias. I'd challenge you to find a single objective article on gun rights and if you can happen to find one that flew under my radar, I'll show you 25 more advocating gun control for each. As stated, we are not Russia and power here is not consolidated. They aren't a moth piece for Trump, but a propaganda arm for the Democrats that is subsidized with tax payer money. Even still, at least most the country understands that NPR is hugely left bias which is a different thing the more insidious implementation allowed under the Obama era extension of the National Defense Authorization Act. Even the fact it was rolled into a bill with that name should raise red flags and get people nervous.

[misteraven]

Oh yeah and in regards to the contradictions referenced in my references... Like any reference, they should be a starting point towards your own research and understanding of truth. But they might be defining a position in more than way, which here they are. One is talking about organizations controlling the media, whereas the other is talking about individuals that own them.

[Kults]

womp womp

 

Time to redirect the pearl clutching 

 

 

 

 

 

[abrasivesaint]

I hope it holds. I hope he helped work it all out. What won’t be held is my breath.  

[abrasivesaint]

Time to redirect backhanded comments. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by abrasivesaint
Spelling

[Hua Guofang]

12 hours ago, misteraven said:

No doubt every person has a bias, but news was intended to be objective. That means at least making credible efforts to present facts, versus what we see, which is editorializing. Thing is, there was a time not long ago when editorials were preceded by bold identifiers that said, "opinion" or "editorial" and that is no longer the case. People don't want to think for themselves (general statement). We live in era where attention spans have been devolved to bite sized consumable content and engagement often requires sensationalist headlines to attain. News articles are no longer a presentation of fact and context, so that the reader can form their own opinion.

 

I can't speak for your references to Australian national news source, neither can I speak to the British ones as I dont read either. But as you've mentioned yourself about America's NPR, they bash Trump at every opportunity ands if you go back and look, they rarely if ever were critical of Obama. That's the definition of bias. I'd challenge you to find a single objective article on gun rights and if you can happen to find one that flew under my radar, I'll show you 25 more advocating gun control for each. As stated, we are not Russia and power here is not consolidated. They aren't a moth piece for Trump, but a propaganda arm for the Democrats that is subsidized with tax payer money. Even still, at least most the country understands that NPR is hugely left bias which is a different thing the more insidious implementation allowed under the Obama era extension of the National Defense Authorization Act. Even the fact it was rolled into a bill with that name should raise red flags and get people nervous.

Agree with your first para, quality of news is declining throughout the mainstream and partisanship is on the rise as it's what makes profit. Its more satisfying to have your expectations and biases supported than challenged and that's what a lot of the business models work off. There are also ideological owners out there, such as Murdoch, et al. People also have agendas, the old Epoch Times used to be an anti-CCP Falun Gong news paper with global distribution. They now see Trump as the best bet to attack the CCP so they are now supporting Trump by posting a lot of MAGA/Qanon lunacy as support (they're open about it too). As a result, the kind of shit being cooked up by your Ben Shapiros and Jacob Wohls are now appearing in another outlet, not because they believe the stories but because it supports their strategic aims.

 

NPR are left leaning, for sure. As are a number of state run broadcasters (Aussie version included, jury is out on BBC), maybe that's an inherent aspect of their financial model. However, I would not say NPR is a an arm of the Dems as that would suggest they use talking points, non-transparent funding or at least coordinate messaging and there is zero evidence that I've ever seen to support that claim. They may align on a number of issues but that's different than them being connected in anyway, as you've claimed. I like having state broadcasters but I can definitely see the argument against using public funding for biased media outlets.

 

Regards the Obama era acts you've cited regards the Cold War era broadcasters, you're going to have to offer some kind of evidence than just your opinion or gut feeling.

[Hua Guofang]

12 hours ago, misteraven said:

Oh yeah and in regards to the contradictions referenced in my references... Like any reference, they should be a starting point towards your own research and understanding of truth. But they might be defining a position in more than way, which here they are. One is talking about organizations controlling the media, whereas the other is talking about individuals that own them.

Yeah, you're right, sorry.

 

Either way, it still doesn't change the point that it only refers to American media orgs in a global landscape. Media is bias and diversity is definitely shrinking (the conservative govt in Australia is looking to reduce our diversity even more with new ownership laws allowing greater consolidation. The lefter of the two parties is pushing back but I reckon they'll also cave to a degree next time their in and the pressure is on them instead).

 

Given that media consumption is done at a global level these days I think only citing ownership of US companies is a little misleading and does not accurately represent the reality of news consumption.

[misteraven]

9 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

Given that media consumption is done at a global level these days I think only citing ownership of US companies is a little misleading and does not accurately represent the reality of news consumption.

Global news here is in the far minority. When I lived in Berlin, BBC and World News and some Russian news network was hugely popular and dominated the landscape. That’s not the case here. Most news, including CNN defaults to the American version and it’s rare for MSM to cover international news unless it’s about specific US interests. Bias in itself. 
 

maybe that’s why we get pegged as thinking we’re the center of the universe, but it’s not really part of the culture here. We hear about churches in Europe burning down and the rain forest on fire but it’s a temporary blip in our national news. You really have to go out of your way to be up on stuff outside the USA cause our streams are mainly only focused on here. 
 

Plus my perspective are based off my experience. I can’t speak for life in places like Australia or elsewhere because I’m here. 

[abrasivesaint]

To touch on the accessibility of world news vs US news here and abroad, I do know the only Australian friend i have is WAY more up to date on US news than most people i know, including myself at times. 

[misteraven]

11 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

NPR are left leaning, for sure. As are a number of state run broadcasters (Aussie version included, jury is out on BBC), maybe that's an inherent aspect of their financial model. However, I would not say NPR is a an arm of the Dems as that would suggest they use talking points, non-transparent funding or at least coordinate messaging and there is zero evidence that I've ever seen to support that claim. They may align on a number of issues but that's different than them being connected in anyway, as you've claimed. I like having state broadcasters but I can definitely see the argument against using public funding for biased media outlets.

You have more faith in people that I do. In business, strategic alliances are part of business. Politics most often takes practices you see in business to the extreme, presumably because the stakes are higher and likely because at the end of the day, they're the same (crony capitalism). I have a very tough time believing that the two entities are entirely independent and that a basic closed door deal along the lines of, 'if we're in power, your funding is assured' type conversations / deals have not taken place. Regardless of such, they are not unbiased and objective and truth be told, there is no charter in our government that puts programs like that as a government responsibility. It's a misappropriation of tax payer funds no matter what, but fact that its also obviously bias, should not only trigger congressional investigation, but very real consequences for those on both sides of facilitating this situation. Even if NPR was fighting for constitutional rights and encouraging gun ownership, I would not be okay with my (or any tax revenue) being used to bank roll it.

[Fist 666]

I can't find the most recent years stats, but typically NPR only gets about 15% funding from federal sources. While I admit that isn't a negligible amount , the fact that a heavy majority of their funding comes from the public it makes sense that their perceived bias would reflect public opinion. Especially a left-er bias as that is the  donating base. 

 

@misteraven That said I would be curious to see something you see as explicitly anti-gun from NPR that isn't an editorial.  I know at one point I linked an article about lead poisoning from shooters eating after range time that you called anti-gun, and I couldn't see it as anything other than factual.

[misteraven]

57 minutes ago, Fist 666 said:

it makes sense that their perceived bias would reflect public opinion.

Except it doesn't. Fact of the matter is statistically the USA basically boils down to a 50/50 split in terms of political identity.Between natural (minimal) changes and margin for error its almost dead set at 50/50 and has been throughout political history. Whole other conversation, but some say that is by design. Geographically speaking, which is important to note in an electoral college system such as ours, it actually more often skews conservative.

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, Fist 666 said:

@misteraven That said I would be curious to see something you see as explicitly anti-gun from NPR that isn't an editorial.  I know at one point I linked an article about lead poisoning from shooters eating after range time that you called anti-gun, and I couldn't see it as anything other than factual.

Lead poisoning from shooting is a non issue or we'd see evidence and discussion based around occupations that center around exposure to shooting... LEO and Military. Fact of the matter is that the vast majority of small arms ammunition is FMJ, which means you don't even get exposed to lead. Further to that, more and more ammo these days isn't even lead core in an FMJ round. There's very few companies producing the core components to ammo in the USA anymore, which obviously is the bullet itself. Under the Obama administration, they managed to shut a few down based on new EPA legislation, but again... Not a huge deal since since ammo was already migrating to more sophisticated production and materials with better ballistic characteristics.

 

So yeah, when you start to look at threat assessments as to what can actually inflict unnatural death and illness, you're way reaching to be considering that you might get lead poising from breathing blowback resulting from shooting guns or otherwise handling ammunition. To spend time on an article about it, therefore is either a scientific paper exploring a possible topic or agenda driven propaganda and considering NPR and their track record, which of those two was pretty obvious.

 

Google it... Find how many credible cases of lead poising have actually been attributed to firing modern ammunition instead of articles talking about how guns have yet another danger attributed to them.

[Kults]

Seems like the Kurds are happy

 

 

 

[Fist 666]

5 hours ago, misteraven said:

Except it doesn't. Fact of the matter is statistically the USA basically boils down to a 50/50 split in terms of political identity.Between natural (minimal) changes and margin for error its almost dead set at 50/50 and has been throughout political history. Whole other conversation, but some say that is by design. Geographically speaking, which is important to note in an electoral college system such as ours, it actually more often skews conservative.

So this is a false dichotomy. When Americans are simply cast into a right and left camp we wind up with the obscene partisanship we have. Fact is that many Americans do not fit into that binary (insert queer meme here). about 1/3 of Americans identify as moderate. When you cut out lgbtquiasdflj politics, war, abortion, and guns there isn't a lot of difference between most of us. 

 

But, I wasn't clear in the first post. What I wanted to clarify was that the public which actually fiscally donates to NPR is reflected in NPR's message. I would like to see a venn diagram of pbs/npr supporters and NRA memberships...

 

A growing majority of Americans support stricter gun laws:  Current polls which state about 60-70% support stricter laws and regs,  if Americans were truly in this 50/50 split that would imply that 10% minimum  are from the conservative side, also a different conversation and not the point.

 

And yes, the electoral college skews conservative as it is designed to keep voting power out of the big cities. This ensures that the votes of the lesser educated are counted as equal to or greater than the more educated, but yes, a wholly different conversation.

 

I'm going to make dinner, I will try to come back to this conversation tomorrow, but here is the NPR lead dust article as a refresher if anyone cares to join in. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/10/527648768/lead-dust-from-firearms-can-pose-a-silent-health-risk

 

A relevant paragraph that I will be coming back to is this, 

Quote

Many effects from lead can be subtle or nonspecific, says Mark Laidlaw, an environmental health scientist at RMIT University in Australia. "Memory and concentration problems, headache, abdominal pain, mood disorders – they can be attributed to a number of things unrelated to lead," he says. "You can have one of these health effects, but the shooters might not realize these are associated with their shooting. They just don't know they're being lead poisoned."

We are still learning what lead poisoning does to us, and it is often written off as coming from a different source, but have you ever heard of a cop or a combat vet without a mood disorder? Causation/Correlation arguments aside, we cannot write it off as irrelevant or, to the point of the conversation as hand, cannot reduce it to anti-gun journalism. 

[Hua Guofang]

For what it's worth, RMIT is one of our top universities and would likely be in the global top 50, for what that's worth. Just trying to note that it's not some backwater, privately funded obsure org.

 

Not to cast any doubt at all on what @misteravensays about media, but I would find a survey on where the "average American" gets their news from pretty interesting. I would have thought that not only the internet but the rise of global cable news like Al JAzeera, CGTN (spits bile onto the floor....), BBC, etc. would have changed American news consumption habits.

 

First time I was in the US was around 1990 and I couldn't believe how insular news was on the TV. Am still hopeful that has changed somewhat with new tech.

[Guest]

On 10/22/2019 at 4:35 PM, abrasivesaint said:

Knowing what you do from following you and remembering, at least i think i remember, what you do for work, i was surprised to read how much you suggested to cut. Not that i disagree with what you said, i actually agree with damn near all of it.
 

Interesting to see you say you don’t think the country will last another 100 years,  i can’t say i disagree. I’d like to hear how you think it’s going to play out. What’ll be left, what new lines will be drawn, and so forth. I have my own theories but it would be nice to hear others from people around here.

 

Do we collapse and divide? Do certain regions get claimed by other nations? Do some get outright destroyed? Do states claim territory from other states? Who backs us? Who attacks us? Do we go down in a blaze of glory and hit the red button?  

Man, the govt is bloated and over regulates the market it has a strangle on with contracts that are only open to like two bidders. It’s swollen with people exploit the taxpayer. 
 

There should be no such thing as ‘permanent employees’. There should be no such thing as ‘reasonable accommodation’. 
 

Guys laying carpet in govt Bldg’s should not be making $75k and the tax payers should not be paying $500/roll of carpet tape you and I can buy at Home Depot for $12. Especially when these guys are laying carpet in Bldg’s that are scheduled for demo because “they need to be return to the govt in the same condition received”. So do the same math for the painters, electricians, cabinets guys and plumbers who renovate Bldg’s before demo. 
 

stack that with crazy high amount vets in their 30s taking advantage of disability by collecting 80-90% disability every month even though they are completely able bodied because they paid a guy to consult them on exactly what to say to the VA doctor. Add on top of that those same vets collecting GI bill college money to attend schools where you buy a degree, like university of Phoenix. You clock in and clock out at school and as long as you show up and submit something you pass the class because the school wants that same govt check next semester. 
 

the system is broken and the tax payers are treated as whores. 
 

usps is a giant piece of shit that misses delivery dates and loses packages. Then you go to the post office to grieve it and they treat you as an inconvenience. UPS and FEDEX have perfected the job, privatize that shit. 
 

After shit dissolves? Who knows? South west back to Mexico like before it was taken. Louisiana purchase back to France? Lol. The middle absorbed by Canada.  
 

more than likely a bunch of smaller nations like when the Roman Empire died

[misteraven]

46 minutes ago, Fist 666 said:

But, I wasn't clear in the first post. What I wanted to clarify was that the public which actually fiscally donates to NPR is reflected in NPR's message. I would like to see a venn diagram of pbs/npr supporters and NRA memberships...

 

A growing majority of Americans support stricter gun laws:  Current polls which state about 60-70% support stricter laws and regs,  if Americans were truly in this 50/50 split that would imply that 10% minimum  are from the conservative side, also a different conversation and not the point.

 

And yes, the electoral college skews conservative as it is designed to keep voting power out of the big cities. This ensures that the votes of the lesser educated are counted as equal to or greater than the more educated, but yes, a wholly different conversation.

Not sure what PBS has to do with NPR. One is a non profit, member based lobbying group and the other is a media organization that is partially tax payer subsidized.

 

Growing majority according to mainstream media? Most of which are left leaning and staking surveys incorporating the psycho linguistics of documents like I've posted? The same polling groups that said Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidency by a landslide? Sorry man, I have zero faith in polls. I've actually sat in on focus groups as part of brand consultancy work we did for the agency and subsequently advised in every instance to the brand that its an absolute waste of time. You can produce any result you want and end of the day, its not at all representative of anything since its logistically impossible to survey a group large enough to accurately reflect the entire demographic. Its your prerogative if you have more faith in them than I do, but don't see whatever result comes out of whatever poll as anything meaningful regardless of whether it supports my position or not.

 

Indeed, the Electoral College was specifically intended to break up dense populations from dominating politics. Has zero to do with education and everything to do with keeping a key city or two for speaking for the entire nation. Boston, Philadelphia and New York were already densely populated at the time that was established and it was clear to them as now, that if there was no electoral college, basically the entire country would be at the mercy of whatever those cities felt was a priority. Obviously like in Los Angeles differs greatly from life in New York City, but neither of them are very representative of life in the vast majority of the other 98% of the geographical United States. I've had the benefit of living in the most densely populated parts of the USA and now, one of the least populated... Not only is the culture entirely different, but the day to day reality hardly resembles each other. Personally, I think at this point we might all be better off just splitting the country up, but then again if we followed our own charter and left the larger concentrations of power in the hands of the state governments instead of the federal, you'd immediately eliminate most of the problems.

[misteraven]

59 minutes ago, Fist 666 said:

We are still learning what lead poisoning does to us, and it is often written off as coming from a different source, but have you ever heard of a cop or a combat vet without a mood disorder? Causation/Correlation arguments aside, we cannot write it off as irrelevant or, to the point of the conversation as hand, cannot reduce it to anti-gun journalism. 

It's statistically irrelevant. In fact gun violence as a whole, judged in the context of preventable american deaths is statistically irrelevant and when you look at how many of them are by AR15's, its hardly more than a rounding error. Not only is it not in the top 10, but its a tiny fraction of the number one killer of Americans, yet it dominates the social conversation thanks to the mainstream media. If truly the intent is to save lives, far less investment could be made to any of the first few causes with a return on that investment being exponential by comparison. As such, its hard to believe that there isn't a different agenda at play. Sort of speaks for itself until you infuse the topic with all the emotion that the talking points in that document actually advise.

 

And I'm not saying that the topic you bring up shouldn't be studied, but seems ridiculous to me to see NPR chase that article and not see it as more than another bit against gun rights like so many more of their articles have been.

[Fist 666]

Quote

Not sure what PBS has to do with NPR. One is a non profit, member based lobbying group and the other is a media organization that is partially tax payer subsidized.

Both receive  portions of taxpayer subsidized funding from CPB,  the source of the federal dollars is the link between the two. They toe the same line.

 

Quote

Has zero to do with education and everything to do with keeping a key city or two for speaking for the entire nation. 

It was not intended to do so, but it plays into why maintaining the electoral college is  of such  interest to the Republican party today. Cities=Jobs=Education. Rural areas are statistically (inarguably so) less educated that urban metropoles, higher education and liberalism are inextricably linked. Religion follows a similar correlative disbursement.

_______________________________________________________

 

 @misteravenAre you familiar with the concept of "steel manning?" I've only become familiar with it in the last couple years through Sam Harris and Brett Weinstein. The basic premise is that for any debate/argument/conversation you try to frame the opposition's stance as clearly and plainly as possible to ensure that there is not only good faith in the argument, but to ensure there are no core misunderstandings before the debate goes further. I think it could help a lot of the arguments in Crossfire... 

 

Here is my approach to that for this sub-argument of this thread:

 

More or less says NPR can't talk about anything related to firearms, because you believe they are anti-gun (potentially anti-Constitution?), they cannot publish an impartial, apolitical analysis of such. Anything they do publish is politically motivated to inspire the gun grabbing left.

 

Am I off point? if so, how? 

 

 

 

[misteraven]

My mistake, I somehow read NRA as the beneficiary of public funds. (Long day, my bad). I don’t think any tax payer money should do towards arts or entertainment to be honest. Government has enough stuff its tasked with doing that isn’t being done properly. But further, it’s just ripe for abuse and fact of the matter is I don’t think it’s fair to forcefully steal the productivity of an individual and redistribute it. Honestly don’t care if it’s arts or war. 
 

I also don’t care how educated an individual is in the context of this conversation. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is very well educated, but I rarely agree with her politics. Same for Bernie Sanders and so many others. They might hold advanced degrees and be brilliant scholars, doesn’t mean they’re necessarily qualified to decide how everyone else should be living. Likewise, because someone might not be as educated, doesn’t mean they aren’t smart, nor does it mean they’re necessarily less capable of leadership or governing. 
 

You’ve been around long enough to know that my position is people should just mind their own business and people need to relearn how to be accountable for themselves. Less government the better and ‘smart’ people have a tendency to think they know what’s best for everyone. 
 

But back to the topic... Yes, bias is inherent to being human. My criticism is that media hardly even makes efforts at trying to maintain balance, let alone an impartial reporting of facts and context. It’s a ridiculous argument to think NPR is impartial in regards to the second amendment as their track record plainly speaks otherwise. So for them to reach at something like, ‘shooting guns might possibly lead to lead poisoning’ is suspect by default once the topic turns guns. 
 

I’d find it equally ridiculous if the topic was cell phones lead to brain cancer, but at least it wouldn’t raise a red flag of skepticism since they don’t have a track record of criticizing cell phone ownership. Not saying cell phones don’t cause cancer and perhaps some researchers can look into that too, but since I can’t point to any obvious cases of it, I’m not going to worry about that either since cell phones are everywhere and by now the evidence should be pretty obvious. 
 

Not familiar with Steel Manning but have mentioned before the importance of what you’ve described. 
 

As such, to answer your question... NPR is free to talk about anything they want, it’s not place to dictate what other people talk about. I’m merely saying they are clearly biased and considering their track record at advocating against gun rights, any conversation coming from them on the subject of guns will come off to me as extremely suspect. Double so when its not clearly prefaced or framed as another reason to not own a gun and instead presented like a new discovery that we should suddenly be concerned with.
 

Regardless of all that, I don’t see why any of the money I earn, that is forcefully taken from me by way of taxes, should be redistributed to them so they can continue putting out content that I just don’t give a shit about. I really enjoy Recoil magazine... Don’t think they should be subsidized with my (or any other) tax money either. 

[Hua Guofang]

I often think the anti-tax and libertarian argument amusing, espcially from grafitti artists who have a pedigree of imposing their wishes on others for fun.

 

I agree with most libertarian principles but live in the real world. We aint born with inherent rights, what a load of spiritual fairytale crap. We're born into a jungle, if you don't compete, you suffer. The dominent system is dominent because that's the way the strongest want it, I'm just thankful I don't live in fucking North Korea or Somalia. I could "should" this and "shouldn't" that all fucking day. But what it's more practicle to "is" and "is not", "can" cannot". And you know what, I have a pretty fucking awesome life within this system! Why would I want that to change to live up to some ephemeral ideal of fairness and right and wrong?

 

I just find it a bit comically confounding to hear people who come from a sub-culture of breaking rules and not giving a fuck what everyone else thinks to then complain that others don't follow the "rules" and wag their fingers at others saying "you're a bad person because you're not acting in the interests of everyone else and you're breaking the law!!".

 

There are no rules, there is no right and wrong. This system is a sham, everything is still a jungle and the game is to get the best life you can for you and your family. If your family benefits because of some one else's hard work, well boo fucking hoo for them. They lost, you won. Welcome to the jungle.

 

 

/end rant

[Kults]

Gotta admit there’s some truth in there 

[misteraven]

10 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

I often think the anti-tax and libertarian argument amusing, espcially from grafitti artists who have a pedigree of imposing their wishes on others for fun.

 

I agree with most libertarian principles but live in the real world. We aint born with inherent rights, what a load of spiritual fairytale crap. We're born into a jungle, if you don't compete, you suffer. The dominent system is dominent because that's the way the strongest want it, I'm just thankful I don't live in fucking North Korea or Somalia. I could "should" this and "shouldn't" that all fucking day. But what it's more practicle to "is" and "is not", "can" cannot". And you know what, I have a pretty fucking awesome life within this system! Why would I want that to change to live up to some ephemeral ideal of fairness and right and wrong?

 

I just find it a bit comically confounding to hear people who come from a sub-culture of breaking rules and not giving a fuck what everyone else thinks to then complain that others don't follow the "rules" and wag their fingers at others saying "you're a bad person because you're not acting in the interests of everyone else and you're breaking the law!!".

 

There are no rules, there is no right and wrong. This system is a sham, everything is still a jungle and the game is to get the best life you can for you and your family. If your family benefits because of some one else's hard work, well boo fucking hoo for them. They lost, you won. Welcome to the jungle.

 

 

/end rant

Obviously everyone has a right to their opinion, but just because someone grew up doing something like graffiti, I can't see how that would exclude them from adopting a position in life that boils down to just leave me alone.

 

Seems to me that people hold individuals like politicians and police officers in some mythical position of somehow being more qualified create law or enforce the law than anyone else. End of the day they're really no different than your co-workers or the individuals you bump into in the street as you go about your day. Politicians don't have  any magical talent to govern others. In fact, to be a plumber you need to take specific classes, receive specific accreditations and often apprentice before you can be considered professional and proceed to unclog a persons toilet. There's no such requirement to be a politician. From AOC going from waitress to congresswoman through to Donald Trump going from reality tv star and questionable business man to President of the most powerful nation in the history of the planet, this should be obvious. What would you suppose either of them knows about foreign policy and the complexities of stepping into dynamics like the middle east? Likewise, what do you think either of them knows about a lifestyle that might necessitate the need to walk out your door with a gun on you? Seems there's a pretty healthy dislike of both those politicians, depending on what team you've rallied behind, yet at the end of the day, both are making decisions and implementing legislation that has a profound impact on we live. Neither is in any way qualified to understand, let alone govern what I might need or not need to live a healthy, happy and productive life out in NW Montana or to be spending tax money to fly sons and daughters across the world to wage wars, yet there they are... Living under a different set of rules, largely operating outside the law, getting paid sums of money that go far, far beyond that of the average person despite being funded by the taxes taken from them.

 

They're people just like you and I... If you feel comfortable randomly pickling a person off the street, handing them your car and house keys and inviting them over to start managing your income and bills for you, then I suppose you can trust politicians. Even though at the end of the day politicians actually have more affect on your life than a stranger with your keys and bank account.

 

So @Hua Guofangat the end of all this you've just dropped out under the belief that at least you don't live in North Korea and fuck the world, you're going for yours? Your prerogative, but hard to not see that as a cop out after reading so many other intelligent and insightful responses from you. I'm not saying I'm hell bent on changing the world, but I maintain this community with the continued belief that it makes a difference and as it gains power and prominence once again that we can use it to help each other out, even if its just learning something new about a person or place that exists on the other side of the world. I've made decisions and taken actions that have completely rocked my own reality that ultimately boil down to moving to the mountains to live a more wholesome lifestyle... To understand where my food comes from, walk the earth a little more lightly and focus on me and my family with the hopes of living a better life and raising good human beings. I don't care what other people want to do, whether its go through life dressed as the opposite sex, marry the same sex, not eat meat or worship the sun. I believe everyone should be free to pursue their own version of happiness, but that the consequences of it are wholly their own as is the cost of living it. That government, most especially that which exists thousands of miles away and has never set foot in the day to day reality I live has very little business creating laws I'm expected to live by. It's insult to injury when they largely don't live within the same laws and then extort money from me to pay themselves for the privilege and  extort more money to enforce their will on me and good many others around the world. Hard to see why anyone would be okay with that, but to each their own. I just would rather be left alone.

[Mercer]

11 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

I often think the anti-tax and libertarian argument amusing, espcially from grafitti artists who have a pedigree of imposing their wishes on others for fun.

Perspective. I see it more like the people in power chose to keep the wall under the bridge blank because they could impose that will on others. The graffiti artist chose to ignore this, first knowing the wall works just as well with artwork painted on it (it’s not destructive) and chose to exercise their freedom. The graffiti artist is unhinged from the chains Of central control. I think all publicly owned property is fair game, unless the artwork takes away from the functionality of the surfaces like in the case of going over windows , etch etc. I value freedom over mob/majority rule, therefor the majority of what people prefer should not be imposed on everyone, in every case, especially in the case of something as unobtrusive as artwork. This concept is very libertarian in nature and under the extremist philosophy of libertarianism that I subscribe to, (Anarcho-capitalism) it’s justified to paint a burner on a publicly owned wall so long as ”the public” (government) is involuntary in nature, and forced upon the population.

 

Furthermore, not understanding the basic concept of private property which I myself was 100% guilty of, painting on private property was an extension of of that concept.

 

I no longer believe it’s ok to paint on private property, and always justified this to myself under the false premise that these large corporations were somehow violating my rights, and this was an appropriate level of retaliation for doing so. This is why most writers stop at large businesses, and will never paint on “personal property” like cars, and private homes. They feel justified in painting on ”private property” like a freight train, or a wall owned by Starbucks, or rich person’s property who is believed to be somehow exploiting society. This justification is 100% wrong to me in retrospect knowing what I know now. Even so, it still falls 100% under extremist libertarian left philosophy (Anarcho-communist). Their false assumption that all wealth is the result of exploitation justifies their non recognition of property rights beyond the realm of just personal property.

 

I conclude that this gives me no right to smash a Starbucks window in a riot, or paint on something that isn’t publicly owned (unless in the rare case that Starbucks actually did something that directly violated me). 

 

Quote

 

I agree with most libertarian principles but live in the real world. We aint born with inherent rights, what a load of spiritual fairytale crap.

Under this line of thinking, Murder, assault, and even child rape is a valid action so long as it’s legal?

 

Just trying to point out a super important, and obvious concept you’re ignoring to validate you argument against freedom. Morality is a separate concept than legality, and supersedes legality in prosperous communities/societies . When this concept is adhered to by a society, and used as a foundation for its legal system the society benefits. Where this concept is violated, society/humans will alway suffer. Outside of self defense, you never have the right to violate someone’s ownership over every living cell in their body in any way. This natural law is the foundation of all peaceful human existence, whether it’s acknowledged in writing on legal documents or not.

 

Quote

We're born into a jungle, if you don't compete, you suffer.

This is the law of nature, and so long as this concept is the only one adhered to humans live as animals. On top of this natural law, humans had to live by the non-aggression principal to transcend nature and become something more than animals.

 

For example let’s say it’s the year 12019 BC, and we are naked in the woods living like animals.  If  You were to pick up a stick from the ground and fashion it into a useful tool like a spear, you would be able to take down larger game. Without the natural human concept of natural law the stronger would just take that stick from you as their own, meaning it would be of no use for someone to exploit a natural resource and transform it into a useful tool.  The incentive does not exist, therefore you may as well be a gorilla, who has no understanding of personal property. The most dominant gorilla always wins, but as a whole, living thing n gorilla society is inferior.

 

The same concepts taken further allows for incentives of agriculture, for if the people who develop the land, and plant the seeds have no right to its bounty, there is zero incentive to plant crops. Sure, some rough humans may still decide to violate, a group of bandits for example may come and seize the harvest for themselves, this is why use of force in defense of property is valid, just like defending your own life.
 

 

Quote

The dominent system is dominent because that's the way the strongest want it, I'm just thankful I don't live in fucking North Korea or Somalia.

Without adherence to libertarian concepts, you would be living in North Korea, Communist China, Nazi Germany, etc. Totalitarianism is not a result of genetic inferiority, or lack of resources, it’s an unwillingness, or inability of the governed to defend their natural rights.

 

Quote

I could "should" this and "shouldn't" that all fucking day. But what it's more practicle to "is" and "is not", "can" cannot". And you know what, I have a pretty fucking awesome life within this system! Why would I want that to change to live up to some ephemeral ideal of fairness and right and wrong?

You live in a free* society and constitution democracy, this sort of supports my point. If you lived closer to a totalitarian society and could still say life is good, (privileged class of communist party members etc.)  that still wouldn’t change the fact that the more free a society is, the better that society is to live in overall.

 

Quote

 

I just find it a bit comically confounding to hear people who come from a sub-culture of breaking rules and not giving a fuck what everyone else thinks to then complain that others don't follow the "rules" and wag their fingers at others saying "you're a bad person because you're not acting in the interests of everyone else and you're breaking the law!!".

Take a look in the political compass thread, we generally don’t like rules that violate our rights. Very few of us even approach the center of the totalitarian/libertarian axis. Most of us want less rules, and fall closer to the libertarian end of that spectrum. This is obvious to me, and what I expect. If you’re still having trouble understanding that you may want to rethink this concept.

 

Quote

 

There are no rules, there is no right and wrong. This system is a sham, everything is still a jungle and the game is to get the best life you can for you and your family. If your family benefits because of some one else's hard work, well boo fucking hoo for them. They lost, you won. Welcome to the jungle.

 

 

/end rant

Dude, you seriously have no morals, or don’t see the value in them? Might makes right, meanwhile you’re in a Relatively weak country with abundant resources. So it’s just going to be oh well if those resources are taken? Or let’s say your neighbor is politically connected enough to seize your home from you, you’d be OK with that because welcome to the jungle. I seriously doubt that.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Mercer

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

There are no rules, there is no right and wrong. This system is a sham, everything is still a jungle and the game is to get the best life you can for you and your family. If your family benefits because of some one else's hard work, well boo fucking hoo for them. They lost, you won. Welcome to the jungle.

If I knew what the lottery numbers were every night I would play the shit out of em. Like Biff with his sports almanac from the future. 

[Hua Guofang]

I'm not going down the rabbit hole on this as I'm too busy and kind of don't care to. But I'll not be rude and ignore you

 

@misteraven - I believe everyone should be free to pursue their own version of happiness, but that the consequences of it are wholly their own as is the cost of living it.

 

You used the word should. Yeah, sure, we should all drink milk and eat honey every day and the world should be wonderful. But it's not, the world is a jungle and there are people who will have the power to be cunts, and if they must they'll find a way to legitimise being a cunt (sometimes even to themselves) and that is the world.

 

That is why you own guns, because the world, when it comes down to it is a jungle. You're born with your skin, nothing else. And if some one else aint nice to you, you'll die within hours. You can say "should not have have had their rights ignored, should have not been born with a crack mum". But they weren't born with rights, they weren't offered any and they were born to a crack mum. Why, because the world is a jungle and anything other than that is a human construct that humans can taketh away. The evidence is as you've spelled it out below:

 

That government, most especially that which exists thousands of miles away and has never set foot in the day to day reality I live has very little business creating laws I'm expected to live by. It's insult to injury when they largely don't live within the same laws and then extort money from me to pay themselves for the privilege and  extort more money to enforce their will on me and good many others around the world.

 

Yeah, and you know why they do that? Because they can and that's how they want it (it maybe because they are cunts, it may be because they truly think that's what's best. Either way, that's the way they want it and they have the power to make it that way). I know they shouldn't, but they do. Welcome to the jungle.

 

 

 

@Mercer-

Under this line of thinking, Murder, assault, and even child rape is a valid action so long as it’s legal?

 

Honestly, I can't even imagine the logic chain that gets you to that point... My values tell me that child rape and whatever are wrong, I won't do it and I will try to stop others from doing it. Are there people that disagree with that? Go ask the prison population. It's the same as human rights. Do I believe in freedom of expression, association, religion, the rights of the individual, etc. etc.? Yep, sure do. Do I believe in the rule of law (we can argue over which laws are good and bad, of course), yep, sure do. Why? Because it seems to make sense but most importantly, I understand that this is a system that has the greatest chance of keeping my family safe. Is it right, well, hundreds of millions of people in China and many other countries would say no. They honestly believe that human rights is the interests of the collective (the CHICOMS have perverted that these days, of course) and to pursue individual rights is to cause trouble and chaos. Who am I to tell them they are wrong and I am right? Who am I to tell even one of my compatriots who believes similar to the Chinese that they are wrong and I am right?

 

Values are subjective and a large part of your value set is based on time and place. Who you were born to and where you were born, geographically and temporally.

 

 Morality is a separate concept than legality, and supersedes legality in prosperous communities/societies .

Nope, law is literally the manifestation of morality, ethics and tradition. Much law is based on religious fundamentals. Have a look at the ten commandments, have a look at sharia, etc. etc.

 

This natural law is the foundation of all peaceful human existence, whether it’s acknowledged in writing on legal documents or not.

Hahaha, there is nothing "natural" about the laws we make, unless you include that undefined myth of "human nature". Law is a man-made, social construct that differs from country to country, religion to religion, person to person. If this law of yours was 'natural', the codified legal systems of the world over would be the same. But they're not, because it's a social construct and values are subjective. When you die, your values disappear like they never existed.

 

Without the natural human concept of natural law the stronger would just take that stick from you as their own, meaning it would be of no use for someone to exploit a natural resource and transform it into a useful tool.

Says they guy who gets angry for the cops being fascists and abusing power. Says the guy that US interventionism in the Middle East and quest for resource control is the root of evil in the region. Says the guy who gets angry at the govt taking your money to spend it how they see fit. The stronger are taking shit from you all the time but you still go to work every day, don't you? The stronger are taking people's shit and killing them every day, you complain about it all the time! Welcome to the jungle, homey bro!

 

Dude, I have morals but they are mine. You have your morals, they are yours. We live by our own values and we hope others to live by them too. Are you silly enough to say that there is one eternal truth, one unmistakable right and one unmistakable wrong, and you know what they are? Are you that arrogant? I never said I'd be ok with some one taking my shit and that I'd be like, "oh well, it's the jungle, I guess it's the way it is, then". Of course not, I support systems that support my interest. So then of course I support a global rules based order when I live in a middle to small power nation. Do I do that because I think it's morally right? Who cares, even if it was morally wrong I'd still support it because it keeps me alive. Same with the current system, I know politicians are largely cunts, I don't trust most cops and I know that the law is not applied fairly and evenly..., or even fucking close to that. But do I thrive in this system? Yes I do. So do I support this system? Yes I do, because my life fucking rocks.

 

Do I feel some moral dissonance over this situation? Sure I do. My values say that if I want to pay taxes into universal health care because I feel sorry for the poor then I should be allowed to but I shouldn't support a system that forces others to do it when they don't share my values about helping those who need it. My values say that I shouldn't support a legal system that benefits the wealthy and connected......, etc. etc. But you know what, I'm not going to live a tough and shit life and force my family to do the same and not actually change anything. Sure, I'll do bits and pieces here and there, we're going to adopt a kid and we'll become foster parents down the track because we'd like to leave the world a little bit better than the way we found it. But that's relative to our standards and our values, I know others will disagree and say I should do more or am a sucker for even doing that much. Because values are subjective, right and wrong are epiphenomenal and come and go in a natural world, which is the jungle. There is no might makes right because there is no such thing as right. There's only is, and isn't. Can and can't. Does and doesn't. You can stand in front of a bullet for your values and it may be the right thing for you to do, but you'll still die.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by Hua Guofang

[Hua Guofang]

Jesus fucking christ, these are apparently direct quotes from Trump's al Baghdadi press conference today:

 

 

 

Trump treats the Baghdadi raid like a TV show. - Says US forces killed him “in grand style” - “I got to watch much of it” - says Baghdadi “died like a dog,” “as a coward running and crying,” “spent his last moments in utter fear,” “whimpering and crying and screaming

 

 

 

Question from reporter after the speech: "How did you watch this?" Trump: "Absolutely perfect. As though you were watching a movie."

9 replies 30 retweets 90 likes

 

 

 

“These people are very smart," Trump says of ISIS. "They’re very technically brilliant. You know, they use the internet better than almost anybody in the world, perhaps other than Donald Trump.”

6 replies 41 retweets 73 likes

 

 

 

 

"We are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. And we may have to fight for the oil," says Trump. "Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight.”

7 replies 31 retweets 56 likes

 

 

 

“It was much easier dealing with the Kurds after they went through three days of fighting,” says Trump. Without that beating, they wouldn’t have accepted “moving over” from the border. Turkey “wanted that safe zone for many years. I’m glad I was able to help them get it."

14 replies 68 retweets 74 likes

 

 

 

 

 

“The oil is so valuable,” says Trump. “We should be able to take some also. And what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an Exxon Mobil, or one of our great companies, to go in there and do it properly.”

25 replies 93 retweets 121 likes

 

 

 

 

 

“If you read about the history of Donald Trump," says the president, "I always used to say … If they’re going into Iraq, 'Keep the oil.' They never did." If we had done that, he says, Iraq "would be owing us a lot of money. They would be treating us much differently."

3 replies 31 retweets 56 likes

 

 

 

 

 

Trump says "I will secure the oil," since there's "tremendous money involved." Iraq "discriminates against America in oil leases," he says. "We go in, we lose thousands of lives, spend trillions of dollars, and our companies don't even have an advantage in getting the oil leases"

[Hua Guofang]

Oh, and @MercerI don't, for one second believe that a global rules based order exists. I saw Turkey last week, I saw the US invade Iraq in 2003, I watch the Chinese build fortresses in the South China Sea whilst imprisoning its Muslim population and I see Russia annexing Donbass, Abkhazia and Osettia. I see KSA killing kids in Yemen, I see Indians killing Muslims in Kashmir, I see the Myanmarese killing Rohinghas and I see the North Koreans making nuclear weapons.

 

Tell me how its the global rules based order that keeps Australia safe, not it's geographic isolation, potent strike capabilities and most of all, our alliance with the United States and Great Britain. I could do with a laugh!

 

.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Hua Guofang

[Kults]

Died like a dog lolll 👍🏻 Good