Was Trump stupid for claiming credit for "the vaccine" , will Democrats use that to fuck him in his fat ass as their own vaccine regret intensifies?

M

max420thc

Well-Known Member
Drop That Sound said:
Can I come to Australia on a plane from the US right now, without having any vaccines in decades? Good god, conservative Aussie women are some of the hottest babes on earth!
Click to expand...
Don't do it, aussie women are insane I don't care how good you think they look. Fly straight to the Philippines and have a good time for just a few dollars compared to Australia or go to Thailand.
 
HGCC

HGCC

Well-Known Member
I think the guy that keeps saying he looked at child porn is saying to go have sex with cheap prostitutes in SE Asia rather than meet women and you know, not pay for sex.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Rob Roy said:
Yes, I can.

My belief structure is based in the idea that people who leave others alone (don't take their stuff or use offensive force against them or threaten to) are doing it right. Those who don't abide by that are doing it wrong.

Which of those types of people would you prefer to associate with ? You seem very reluctant to commit to the obvious.
Click to expand...
What you call obvious is not so. In your adherence to an inflexible and unrealistic principle, you build unsound structures.

Let’s stipulate a city of ten thousand plus. Tell me how you would prevent some obvious malefactors from operating inside city limits, entirely without coercion:

1) a tannery

2) a school for pederasts

3) a privately-held security firm that will protect you from bandits so long as you pay $1000. per month per person in your dwelling

4) a foreign invader

Your proposed society completely lacks an immune system. It is predicated on the definitively utopian idea of voluntary cooperation.

And every time you are cornered by the hard logic of it, you commit affronts to reason, descents into frivolity, or both. Like the loaded question with which you are still trying to entrap your interlocutor.

I reject your straw men, loaded questions, and mobile-goalpost word definitions. Your vision is utopian, and thus irredeemably protofascist. Which you prove every time you express preference for Maga.

So no. To attempt to argue within your protean illusion of a moral framework is to say Yes to delusion.

So, in adherence to the proper way to deal with trick questions, my answer is: I prefer the company of sane people.

*Now let’s stipulate that the boss of the “local volunteer police” begins that perfect expression of a free market: cartelizes with surrounding polities to impose the business model regionally. The organization declares competitors to be violent criminals and rounds up the dissenters, who now go to a private prison that charges $3000. per month per inmate, with delinquency being declared a capital crime. (Bear in mind that there can be no judicial system in the society you describe.)

Walk us through how you would neutralize the established arrangement using a complete absence of coercion. (You won’t. You will seek to conveniently redefine your terminology as you always have done. You complain I won’t commit, all the while you don’t commit to the fact that your read on human nature is psychotic.)

Now follow your own precepts and dispense with the hounding.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
On the other hand, he could be controlled opposition and his job could be to herd people into the figureative gas chamber for a hot shower.
Click to expand...
Honestly, that's not the craziest idea. I've often thought that Trump ran for president to help the Democrats win (he is a former Dem himself after all), but then when he won everything got real topsy-turvey, and he then shifted gears to destroy the GOP via a slow ride from within.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
True statements only because "most of Australia" doesn't have any people living on it either :lol:
Click to expand...
My states about 1/2 the size of England (Population of 67 million) and only has about 500,000 residents. Which is about 250,000 to many. :hump:

But it was American airline crews that kept bringing Covid back to our shores. Real shame every country didn't adapt the eradication policy that others had. I wonder if the Covid world would of been very different if Obama had of still been in the top job, at least i think he would of taken it more seriously.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
What you call obvious is not so. In your adherence to an inflexible and unrealistic principle, you build unsound structures.

Let’s stipulate a city of ten thousand plus. Tell me how you would prevent some obvious malefactors from operating inside city limits, entirely without coercion:

1) a tannery

2) a school for pederasts

3) a privately-held security firm that will protect you from bandits so long as you pay $1000. per month per person in your dwelling

4) a foreign invader

Your proposed society completely lacks an immune system. It is predicated on the definitively utopian idea of voluntary cooperation.

And every time you are cornered by the hard logic of it, you commit affronts to reason, descents into frivolity, or both. Like the loaded question with which you are still trying to entrap your interlocutor.

I reject your straw men, loaded questions, and mobile-goalpost word definitions. Your vision is utopian, and thus irredeemably protofascist. Which you prove every time you express preference for Maga.

So no. To attempt to argue within your protean illusion of a moral framework is to say Yes to delusion.

So, in adherence to the proper way to deal with trick questions, my answer is: I prefer the company of sane people.

*Now let’s stipulate that the boss of the “local volunteer police” begins that perfect expression of a free market: cartelizes with surrounding polities to impose the business model regionally. The organization declares competitors to be violent criminals and rounds up the dissenters, who now go to a private prison that charges $3000. per month per inmate, with delinquency being declared a capital crime. (Bear in mind that there can be no judicial system in the society you describe.)

Walk us through how you would neutralize the established arrangement using a complete absence of coercion. (You won’t. You will seek to conveniently redefine your terminology as you always have done. You complain I won’t commit, all the while you don’t commit to the fact that your read on human nature is psychotic.)

Now follow your own precepts and dispense with the hounding.
Click to expand...
1) Tannery - Tanneries existed under government and freely polluted other peoples land. Sometimes pollution sources have BEEN government associated or driven. There is no "system" that will keep EVERY bad actor from polluting land, water or air which isn't exclusively theirs.

2) Pederasts . See answer above, similar circumstances, different topic. There are many instances where pedos ARE some government functionary, no?

3) Private security. Actual market competition and consumer feedback can keep a private security firm from mimicking governmental coercion based security models. Governmental security models (policing) are already the thing you fear. We already have a domineering extorting control based "security entity", which you can't not pay unless you want to suffer violence from them. They hold a monopoly on the use of force, which is why they can't possibly be an actual security provider, if the first thing they do is prevent competition and force you to pay them, whether you want them or not.

In a free market, consumers would be dumb to pay somebody who doesn't provide the service they want. They'd have actual choice, rather than what exists today, "pay us or else".
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
4) a foreign invader

Your proposed society completely lacks an immune system. It is predicated on the definitively utopian idea of voluntary cooperation.

And every time you are cornered by the hard logic of it, you commit affronts to reason, descents into frivolity, or both. Like the loaded question with which you are still trying to entrap your interlocutor.

I reject your straw men, loaded questions, and mobile-goalpost word definitions. Your vision is utopian, and thus irredeemably protofascist. Which you prove every time you express preference for Maga.

So no. To attempt to argue within your protean illusion of a moral framework is to say Yes to delusion.

So, in adherence to the proper way to deal with trick questions, my answer is: I prefer the company of sane people.

*Now let’s stipulate that the boss of the “local volunteer police” begins that perfect expression of a free market: cartelizes with surrounding polities to impose the business model regionally. The organization declares competitors to be violent criminals and rounds up the dissenters, who now go to a private prison that charges $3000. per month per inmate, with delinquency being declared a capital crime. (Bear in mind that there can be no judicial system in the society you describe.)

Walk us through how you would neutralize the established arrangement using a complete absence of coercion. (You won’t. You will seek to conveniently redefine your terminology as you always have done. You complain I won’t commit, all the while you don’t commit to the fact that your read on human nature is psychotic.)
Click to expand...
As far as foreign invaders go, I am more concerned about the "domestic invaders" that rule over nearly aspect of your life. Anyway, there is nothing in my preferred arrangment to prevent people from mutually cooperating to repel a common enemy.


As to the rest of your diatribe about me not directly answering questions etc. I have a question for you.

Which kind of individual(s) do you prefer to associate with, those who insist you do things their way under threat of violence, even if you are peacefully minding your own business or those who don't and are willing to leave you alone as long as you are peaceful?
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I prefer the company of sane people.
Click to expand...
What is sane about a system which assumes consent when none is actually given? Then out of the other side of its serpent mouth it declares, itself to be your protector?

To wit, a coercion based government literally tells its subjects, "we're here to protect your rights, but first we have to violate your consent in order to protect your rights" . That is absurd.

Sanity doesn't abandon logic, it embraces it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top