The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by Frownland

He gets his political opinions from youtubers so I'm not sure if he can. Essentially every discussion with him leads to "conservatism because conservatism because conservatism btw **** liberals because conservatism"

You forgot conservatism.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

he still must go to gulag, but I think the all politicians are bad rhetoric really just lets the actual bought politicians off the hook by muddying the waters

I don’t accept input from the bourgeoisie.

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by Frownland

In your rejection, you said that oppression isn't inherent to money due to the fact that it has to be paired with a system for its oppressive nature to manifest. I responded to this by saying that it doesn't make sense to separate money from its system due to the fact that money does not function without being accepted into a system to circulate within. If you agree with that as well as what I consider oppression, then in order to justify that wealth doesn't equal oppression you have to (should is the more appropriate word here I guess) show an example where a system that utilizes money doesn't also give the wealthy unfair influence on that system, because as of now I can't think of any governments or models that align with your assertion.

I'm not sure I follow. By your logic Agnostic athiests would have the burden of proof of demonstrating the lack of a god. I don't have to justify that wealth doesn't equal oppression, I simply don't accept it that it does.

I mean if you wanna take the fact that I can't demonstrate what your asking than yes, you got me. I can't show you a system where wealth doesn't offer the potential for system exploitation, but again I'd have to ask is that really an inherent quality of wealth? You can get the same influence with death threats, no? Exploitation/oppression seems like more of an inherent quality of human nature.

An after thought: What about something like computer AI playing monopoly? It would follow the rules of the game (a system), and the richest "players" would never have unfair influence. You land on their spot, you pay the price determined by the price on your land card. I'm sure we could model a more complex system as a better demonstration, but would you accept some sort of theoretical simulation as an answer for the burden of proof your putting on me?

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

[INSULT REDACTED]

I don't actually ever have you on ignore.. I just don't want to engage with people that put little or no effort into actually understanding the counterarguments presented to them and having adult conversations.

You should take some notes from the discussion between Frown and I in this thread.

[OccultHawk]

You should take some notes from the discussion between Frown and I in this thread.

lol

He sayin “take notes”

[[MERIT]]

https://archive.org/details/ModernMoneyMechanics

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

I'm not sure I follow. By your logic Agnostic athiests would have the burden of proof of demonstrating the lack of a god. I don't have to justify that wealth doesn't equal oppression, I simply don't accept it that it does.

Then why does it occur in every single system that involves money?

As per your false equivalency: *ppppppfbffbfbfbfbtbtbfbtbpfbtbpfbfbtpffff*

I mean if you wanna take the fact that I can't demonstrate what your asking than yes, you got me. I can't show you a system where wealth doesn't offer the potential for system exploitation, but again I'd have to ask is that really an inherent quality of wealth?

I suppose it might be different for a dolphin or elephant society, sure.

You can get the same influence with death threats, no? Exploitation/oppression seems like more of an inherent quality of human nature.

And money is a tool that human nature appears to utilize in every case.

An after thought: What about something like computer AI playing monopoly? It would follow the rules of the game (a system), and the richest "players" would never have unfair influence. You land on their spot, you pay the price determined by the price on your land card. I'm sure we could model a more complex system as a better demonstration, but would you accept some sort of theoretical simulation as an answer for the burden of proof your putting on me?

That's just randomized oppression.

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Then why does it occur in every single system that involves money?

Because every single system that involves money has a human factor. So how do we go about establishing if it's wealth, human nature, both, or something else?

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Because every single system that involves money has a human factor. So how do we go about establishing if it's wealth, human nature, both, or something else?

What are you, a naturalist?

Both because they're intertwined.

[Maajo]

More minds involved in the economy through social mobility, ie people who are living more or less on the same level=more innovation, more solutions to more problems, more experts, more scientists, more musicians, more everything basically. There's no reason why millions should suffer because a few want to live recklessly high and without concern for the rest of mankind, and America is the prime example of that because we have more wealth and influence than any other civilization in the history of this planet, but we're not using it to better that many people.

I personally can't wait until we live in a world that's so advanced that global travel is affordable, and you can have **** from Thailand or Ethiopia shipped to you in a day without any issues because there's one system governing all of the world's mail. It's not that far off, but because people are afraid of advancements like that because Rush Limbaugh said globalism is evil, we usually reject all of it in favor of longing for 1985 again.

[OccultHawk]

Every penny we have is a penny they don’t have.

Demand a different paradigm.