Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[KingVamp]

A law doesn't have to be federal in order to be binding. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one - if the Swiss can manage, so can the US, and I find their model to be more attractive than many European models. There's a reason why Switzerland tops the charts not only in happiness, but also income.

Never said that. My point was, both federal and the states have laxer gun laws than even Switzerland.

 

[Foxi4]

It's called an analogy, and I'm sorry it hit a nerve.

It didn't hit a nerve, you're just purposefully avoiding the actual argument being made. Let's say you're a politician and you have a noble political objective, like abolishing slavery. That's great, a very good moral stance. You need to be elected to do anything with it. Winning an election and getting into a position of power from which you can enact policy that leads towards your objective is priority number one. If you don't win, you're just a dude with a moral stance - commendable, but ultimately powerless. If you are unable to operate within the system at full capacity, you are at a disadvantaged position and you do your electorate a disservice - they're voting for you on the basis of your political positions. You refusing to do everything in your power to fulfil the objectives of your platform, the platform that your electorate voted you in for, is a dereliction of duty. It is your sworn duty to get the job done. If you can't get the job done, I'm not wasting a vote, I'm voting for someone who will.

Never said that. My point was, both federal and the states have laxer gun laws than even Switzerland.

I didn't compare Switzerland to the United States or any particular state, I compared it to the rest of Europe.

 

[tabzer]

It's called an analogy, and I'm sorry it hit a nerve.

A proper analogy, that would at least touch the point, is if you bought slaves in order to set them free.

Watching you two dance is kind of fun.

 

[Seliph]

Checking back in on this and we're talking about laser guns. Awesome.

 

[Lacius]

It didn't hit a nerve, you're just purposefully avoiding the actual argument being made. Let's say you're a politician and you have a noble political objective, like abolishing slavery. That's great, a very good moral stance. You need to be elected to do anything with it. Winning an election and getting into a position of power from which you can enact policy that leads towards your objective is priority number one. If you don't win, you're just a dude with a moral stance - commendable, but ultimately powerless. If you are unable to operate within the system at full capacity, you are at a disadvantaged position and you do your electorate a disservice - they're voting for you on the basis of your political positions. You refusing to do everything in your power to fulfil the objectives of your platform, the platform that your electorate voted you in for, is a dereliction of duty. It is your sworn duty to get the job done. If you can't get the job done, I'm not wasting a vote, I'm voting for someone who will.
I didn't compare Switzerland to the United States or any particular state, I compared it to the rest of Europe.

You're purposefully avoiding the point of my counterargument: Just because something is lawful, such as slavery, or just because the system allows for something, such as gerrymandering or an unrepresentative Senate, doesn't mean one should take advantage of that system or that the system should be that way.

You have previously made the argument that getting your team in power is more important than whether or not the system is democratic, which is authoritarian and makes any argument by you in support of the anti-democratic aspects of the system arbitrary. You'd be on my side if it benefited your side.

A proper analogy, that would at least touch the point, is if you bought slaves in order to set them free.

That wasn't the point of my analogy.

 

[tabzer]

That wasn't the point of my analogy.

I know, which is why it wasn't good analogy. @Foxi4 clearly suggested using the social/legal standards to get idealized propositions into reality (ie change the world for the better through the utilization of its current imperfect form) , which is why my tweaking of your "analogy" to encapsulate that point has more integrity as an analogy. Maybe he likes slavery. But that isn't the point he was making.

Maybe I read him wrong. Maybe he disagrees with how I interpret it.

:::shrug:::

 

[Lacius]

I know, which is why it wasn't good analogy. @Foxi4 clearly suggested using the social/legal standards to get idealized propositions into reality (ie change the world for the better through the utilization of its current imperfect form) , which is why my tweaking of your "analogy" to encapsulate that point has more integrity as an analogy. Maybe he likes slavery. But that isn't the point he was making.

Maybe I read him wrong. Maybe he disagrees with how I interpret it.

:::shrug:::

His point was that a person should do everything in their legal power to accomplish their desired goals, but that doesn't mean what's legal or what's systemic should continue to be that way.

 

[tabzer]

His point was that a person should do everything in their legal power to accomplish their desired goals, but that doesn't mean what's legal or what's systemic should continue to be that way.

That's what I think he is saying too.

Otherwise we could agee that no laws should be changed, ever.

 

[Lacius]

That's what I think he is saying too.

However, just because a person can take advantage of an anti-democratic system rigged in their favor, for example, doesn't mean they should, and it doesn't mean the system should be that way.

 

[tabzer]

However, just because a person can take advantage of an anti-democratic system rigged in their favor, for example, doesn't mean they should, and it doesn't mean the system should be that way.

Well, I agree that the system shouldn't be that way, but I don't know who can decide who should and should not take advantage of it if it is already built and operating in that way. How do you cancel it? By getting your guy in the position? Or letting the other guy?

 

[Lacius]

Well, I agree that the system shouldn't be that way, but I don't know who can decide who should and should not take advantage of it if it is already built and operating in that way. How do you cancel it? By getting your guy in the position? Or letting the other guy?

Those who want to change the system cannot win in enough numbers to change the system unless the rigged system is changed, but the rigged system cannot be changed unless those who want to change it win enough numbers. It's a Catch-22.

 

[tabzer]

Those who want to change the system cannot win in enough numbers to change the system unless the rigged system is changed, but the rigged system cannot be changed unless those who want to change it win enough numbers. It's a Catch-22.

Really seems like that. Maybe that's the only outcome from the system, and the idea of change is just an illusion to keep people embellishing its presence.

 

[Foxi4]

Thanks for explaining my own position @Lacius, without your help I wouldn't know what *I* think. I can see it now - the hypothetical scenario of a President Lacius (God, spare us all).

Alternative America, present day. A bill to fully legalise slavery has just passed due to the Senate's inaction. President Lacius addresses the nation:

"Dear slaves. I know that your new predicament is surprising and unfortunate, your emancipation is my priority. As President, I have advocated against the bill that put you in servitude, however... we couldn't really stop it without using the filibuster, and using it just wouldn't sit right with me - it's undemocratic. Fair is fair - the majority has decided, and no amendment is absolute. I hope proponents of abolition elect me again so we can try to undo this. Until then, hang in there, kitties!"

Get outta here. If it's there, use it to achieve your goals. If you don't use it, you shouldn't be in office - you don't have what it takes. The public gave you a vote of confidence and you let your own personal feeling stand in the way of doing your job. If that's your idea of governance, spare the people the disappointment - don't run for office. Politics take grit, if you don't have grit, you're just a guy with "principles" and no courage or power to change anything.

@tabzer immediately understood what my point was, meanwhile you're just trying (and failing) to pull weird gotchas instead of addressing the point.

Given the opportunity, you *would* use whatever systems were available to you to achieve your goals, or you'd be a fool. If you're against using the system to achieve your goals, which may or may not include changing said system, you're supporting the wrong party - the Democrats are on record praising the filibuster *and* the Electoral College when the two behooved them. President Obama himself praised it in 2005, now that he's *not* a Senator and the tool is no longer useful it's a "Jim Crow relic".



Obama vs. Obama is almost as good as Lacius vs. Lacius.



Can't break the rules to change the rules. The majority doesn't want to hear what others have to say, even if it's the rule. You might own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. He said it, not me.

I also won't bother commenting much in regards to any and all accusations of "authoritarian tendencies" - I'm the guy who clearly stated that the government should be limited in scope and size, unintrusive and ideally in a state of near-constant stalemate so that only broadly supported policy slips through. You might not know this, but libertarians? They're not big fans of the government. Shocking, I know. If that's your definition of what an authoritarian government looks like, it's incongruent with the actual definition of the word.

Authoritarian
adjective
Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

I want the government out of people's business, and their pockets. I've made that abundantly clear, and I'll always stand for personal freedoms, using any and all tools available to protect them, or advocate for them.

 

[Valwinz]

The Biden Fascist goons are again rioting and attacking random people Thank god the police was there

Seattle: Police rushed in to arrest BLM-antifa rioters after a child was assaulted by them. An #antifa flag can be seen in the crowd. Videographer @KatieDaviscourt was brazenly assaulted by a protester for filming: https://t.co/urfdkKfT58

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) May 2, 2021

 

[Xzi]

The Biden Fascist goons are again rioting and attacking random people Thank god the police was there

Ngo's a known fraudster. Always assume anything he posts is faked or staged in some way. Or don't, and people will just assume you're an idiot.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Um....except that most if not all the time Andy Ngo is right. He even got he skull cracked by these psychopaths.

 

[Xzi]

Um....except that most if not all the time Andy Ngo is right.

Right about what? I just told you he fakes his videos. He's been caught faking his videos. He'll start shit or pay someone to start shit, and then only record when the other side starts fighting back. Dude's a far-right agitator.

 

[Foxi4]

Right about what? I just told you he fakes his videos. He's been caught faking his videos. He'll start shit or pay someone to start shit, and then only record when the other side starts fighting back. Dude's a far-right agitator.

I'm unfamiliar with the accusation of staging events to film them - Ngo's coverage has been heavily criticised on the grounds of lack of objectivity and selective editing, and both charges are probably true, but that can be said about a lot of modern journalists.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Right about what? I just told you he fakes his videos. He's been caught faking his videos. He'll start shit or pay someone to start shit, and then only record when the other side starts fighting back. Dude's a far-right agitator.

Gimme some example and/or evidence to this so I can see for myself, because from what I've seen, it's clear that Antifa and BLM are violent and engage in criminal activity on a regular basis, and it's been shown time and time again online,

 

[Xzi]

Ngo's coverage has been heavily criticised on the grounds of lack of objectivity and selective editing, and both charges are probably true, but that can be said about a lot of modern journalists.

Yeah if any of his footage had any merit to it, Fox would be running it 24/7. Even they're smart enough to stay far away from that lawsuit bait.