comments by Reality

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sun, 7 Feb 2016, 9:52pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 1

bob2356 says

Venezuela is socialist like Somalia is capitalist, with the same results. Even that great socialist rag the WSJ can see the difference. Too bad ironbrain doesn't have a clue. . http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/04/07/venezuelas-not-suffering-from-socialism-but-from-anti-marketism/#7003a9a42b5348c87cf42b53

Somalian economy and living standards improved much faster under their brief period of anarchy in the 1990's than they ever did under socialism: even under no central government protection, the private enterprises built the wireless network for the country, while its former peers continuing on Somalia's previous socialist trajectory, Cuba and North Korea, saw central government active banning of personal computers and wireless phones.

Tim Worstall's article proves only his own economic illiteracy. Share holding and partnership by private individual choice is not socialism. When Goldman Sachs was a partnership, each partner chose to be part of the partnership . . . quite unlike socialism where everyone is forced into nominal ownership while exercising no management control except the very top 0.001% who garners the real benefit of "state ownership." Worstall utterly fails to realize that when productive capital is not competitively owned by different individuals (or groups of individuals by individual member choice), the myriads of difference uses of a piece of "capital" can not be optimized. Banning competitive market on "capital" (as in "socialism") inevitably lead to waste of capital and resources, just like banning competitive market on consumer goods. There is no clear line between what is "capital" vs. what is "consumer goods." Many "consumer goods" can be turned into productive use and become "capital." A competitive market place is necessary to ensure efficient use. When the revolutionaries took over the French royal library, the revolutionaries had no qualms about burning the books and the furniture to keep themselves warm! That's how state bureaucrats would treat "capital" when they exercise management control while have no ownership.

"Socialism" is just a 19th century new word for serfdom (and slavery) that was rapidly going out of fashion under the pressure of relative free market capitalism practices that became mainstream in the 18th century. "Political mandate" is just another way of saying "The Divine Right of the King" to override individual choices. They even say "crowning" regarding politicians winning elections!

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:51pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

Two words: Independent Contractor.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 11:17am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. A man does not give up his rights simply for having consensual recreational sex. Your statement is as logical as saying that a person gives up his right to bear arms if he ever orders a happy meal from McDonald's.

He acquires a probabilistic responsibility when he deposits sperm in a fertile woman.

Hell, I could make a far better case that people who have children give up their rights to possess firearms because guns in the home are a danger to children. You want to go there?

Only in your deranged mind.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 11:14am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 4

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Whether or not a procedure is safe is not relevant to the fact that it's a human rights violation to force it upon another person, especially a medical procedure that has no medical purpose. Your argument is identical to requiring women to have a transvaginal sonogram before getting an abortion. It is morally abhorrent and illegal, and quite frankly despicable and disturbing.

Nope. Men choosing to have vasectomy undertake the procedure for a very clear medical purpose: avoiding depositing sperm in a woman while enjoying sex. You may want to try that, Dan, considering what a loser you are.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 11:11am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

iwog says

When talking about the severity of mutilation, you have to have mutilation to begin with. Menstuation, nose-bleeding and all-natural child births do not involve mutilation to begin with, just natural bleeding. Abortion and surgical child birth however do involve mutilation.

Dance monkey, dance!

Live birth involves far more mutilation than having your tubes tied. You've obviously never examined a real woman.

Why am I not surprised by your strawman tactics. I said "all-natural child birth" as opposed to "surgical child birth" whereas you dumb ass wanted to talk about "live birth."

In other words, you already conceded the point! LOL!

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

iwog says

Nope, you are. You measured the amount of harm based on the amount of lost blood. It's YOUR argument. It's YOUR metric. According to your logic, giving birth is EXTREME mutilation.

You should think about these things before you pull arguments out yer ass.

When talking about the severity of mutilation, you have to have mutilation to begin with. Menstuation, nose-bleeding and all-natural child births do not involve mutilation to begin with, just natural bleeding. Abortion and surgical child birth however do involve mutilation.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:37am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 7

iwog says

You are clueless. The morning after pill prevents implantation. There is no pregnancy involved.

This event occurs after conception, after the man has already lost control of his life.

Paraphrasing your own argument: God condemns the man into losing control of his life. LOL! Perhaps you should stop depositing sperm inside women if you are incapable of persuading her what to do with it? Conception has no legal standing.

iwog says

Just like a man can decide not to ejaculate.

This occurs before conception.

Conception has no legal standing.

iwog says

The man can litigate to seek custody.

Unless she decides he can't and the courts will always side with her.

Not when she is already giving up custody.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:34am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

iwog says

Reality says

That is certainly a valid measurement.

Exactly!! So since it's a valid measurement, god is mutilating women. You're so smart.

You are the dumb ass who thinks menstuation is mutilation. Menstuation bleeding is just like nose bleeding, no mutilation involved. However, if you want to compare mutilations, bleeding severity is certainly a valid measurement.

iwog says

Abortions usually involve much more bleeding than menstuation.

So does giving birth you twit.

What's your point? Tax is usually more than child support.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:31am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

iwog says

The woman has to endure the physical aspects of pregnancy.

Or not. She can simply take a morning after pill.

You are clueless. The morning after pill prevents implantation. There is no pregnancy involved.

iwog says

Reality says

Unless she gives up raising the child, she is very much required to raise the child.

You mean unless she decides otherwise, she can do what she wants?

Just like a man can decide not to ejaculate.

iwog says

Reality says

In fact, if the woman gives up the child after birth, and the father usually has the right of first refusal!

Unless of course she has decided to leave his name off the birth certificate.

The man can litigate to seek custody. What's your point? Leaving his name off the BC is just like the man can run off and disappear.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:28am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

iwog says

Reality says

What's your point?

My point is measuring mutilation by the amount of blood involved, which is exactly what you did, is ridiculous and I ridiculed you for it.

That is certainly a valid measurement. Abortions usually involve much more bleeding than menstuation.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:25am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

iwog says

Not when it comes to being assigning responsibility regarding consequences of one's actions.

Unless you're a woman...........

How the fuck can you be so stupid?

What are you talking about? The woman has to endure the physical aspects of pregnancy. Nobody is doing that for her. Unless she gives up raising the child, she is very much required to raise the child. BTW, if your argument is that women should be required to pay surtax just like child support if she gives up the child after giving birth, then I might be inclined to agree with you. In fact, if the woman gives up the child after birth, and the father usually has the right of first refusal! If he takes the child, the mother would indeed be required to pay him child support!

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:21am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

iwog says

Reality says

Most forms of abortion involve more bleeding than vasectomy; so if vasectomy is called "mutilation" then abortion certainly is mutilation.

ROFLOL.............um...............menstruation? GOD IS MUTILATING WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

What's your point? Cutting a woman should be legal if it involves less bleeding than menstuation?

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:20am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

iwog says

Reality says

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that pregnancy is taking place _inside_ her?

And a child takes place inside a man's wallet and physical labor.

My body my choice remember?

Not when it comes to being assigning responsibility regarding consequences of one's actions.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:18am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 14

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Abortion is mutilating the woman too.

Most forms of abortion involve more bleeding than vasectomy; so if vasectomy is called "mutilation" then abortion certainly is mutilation. Dan, when it comes to feeling vs. rational thinking regarding women vs. men, I'm inclined to classify you on the side of women thinking with feelings instead of rationality.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:16am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

Dan8267 says

He can avoid all of that by having a vasectomy, which is a lot easier to do and less painful/risky than either abortion or female sterilization.

That's bullshit. Abortion is safe, even safer than modern childbirth.

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 10:15am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

iwog says

In American society women have 100% of the power to decide the future of her pregnancy and 0% of the responsibility if they so choose.

In American society Men have 0% of the power to decide the future of her pregnancy and 100% of the responsibility if she chooses.

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that pregnancy is taking place _inside_ her?

Look, vasectomy is a lot less painful, less risky, and involves less bleeding than tying the tubes inside a women. Do you think the woman should be legally empowered to decide whether her man gets a vasectomy?

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 9:53am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

iwog says

Reality says

What fascism? Welfare is fascism as it uses coercion for distribution of resources.

Actually welfare isn't fascism because it's generally agreed by the majority to be a good thing. If you don't like it, Somalia awaits you. Making sterilization mandatory however is fascism.

Fascism usually have the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. Long term contraception does not have to involve sterilization. In any case, mandatory sterilization started in the US before in it started in Germany. What I propose is condition for receiving welfare, not mandatory on anyone per se, just a condition for receiving welfare. It's far more effective in the long run than mandating work as condition for receiving welfare.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 9:50am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

iwog says

Probably because you're either a blue pill mangina or still lying about your gender.

I'm still married and my wife is more content than any other woman I know, especially among my extended family.

That's pretty funny for a man living his life according to female reproductive preference -- life-long monogamy.

Your wife's reproductive system has aged past usefulness, but yours has not.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 9:47am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

iwog says

Reality says

Nope. I advocate mandatory contraception as condition for receiving welfare benefits, both both men and women (and mothers of children have to name the father in order to receive welfare, consequently have the mandatory contraception applied to the father too). Such a loser man would have vasectomy either before or after his first child.

Aaaaaaaand there's the transition into fascism. Brilliant.

What fascism? Welfare is fascism as it uses coercion for distribution of resources. What I propose is just a rational condition for receiving welfare, so the skullduggery that you brought up would not be able to exploit and enlarge the welfare fascist state.

Reality   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Fri, 5 Feb 2016, 9:45am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

iwog says

You think so? Well how about this. The implications of your system is that the REAL losers, those men without a job or a purpose in life, are the ones who face no consequences whatsoever, who can make 50 babies if he wants and stick them up your ass because you'll be paying the taxes, and laugh at how stupid you were for giving him a pass.

Nope. I advocate mandatory contraception as condition for receiving welfare benefits, both both men and women (and mothers of children have to name the father in order to receive welfare, consequently have the mandatory contraception applied to the father too). Such a loser man would have vasectomy either before or after his first child.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   Debt Is Slavery