I really don't see the problem with that statement

actually it depends on whether the right to refuse service is a right or not

and how its defined

Yeah, and he's libertarian about it

I don't mind

Dude doesn't even appear to be racist, he's just nationalist

thats not a fair question to ask someone

It's a loaded question, yes

nor is it a realistic demonstration of principles

Like "when did you stop beating your wife?"

"Why do you think gassing Jews is OK?"

it seems fine to me ... would you save a mans life... if he was white, but not if hes black

most people who want freedom dont consiter the logical extremes that freedom can be taken to because they have decided that the good of freedom outways the bad. with freedom comes the choice to be calice

Did he state that the shopkeeper is supposed to ignore the black men dying of thrist? @wacka

Like, needed to do so by law?

who sargon or jarod?

you could always watch it 😛

Jared, obviously

I've only seen him on the warski podcast

I'll check out the sargon one soon

if you would let anyone die when you have plenty of water and giving someone a glass is all you need to do... as far as Im concerned you're probably not a nice person

and further if you would help some and not others based on random characteristics ... even worse in my opinion

But going by what you said, Jared simply stated that the shopkeeper would be allowed to do it.

Like any modern country

There were people watching when XXXTentacion robbed and killed

pretty sure in most countries that murder

Nope

like for example... if someone is dying of heart attack and their pills are right next to you.. and you do nothing.. thats murder

That's murder by moral standards I guess, but youre not the one who killed the person, you simply didn't do anything to help

I do not believe there is a duty to help people by law

its still arrest-able in most modern countries

Hell, not even the police is required to help you in America

@wacka name one.

In fact, there are plenty of laws that can make it a crime to help

basically all european countries

Nope lol

and probably some states

Incompetence isn't murder

Unless the one dying is your patient

also .. arent the police obliged to protect and serve

And you were responsible

Like shooting a man beating a cop, in some states, if you are not a police officer, you could get charged.

@wacka nope.

isint water a public utility?

It was literally stated in a court case that police aren't obligated to help

its not really something you serve here in the us

Even as a utility you need to pay for water here

Were talking about the huawhite ethnostate

With a monarchy

In space

even so i can not create a right for people to have the sovernignty to refuse serving people without scenarios of personal bias influincing how that right is applied. however if i thought this right was worth having in my country i wouldent let those rare and extreme cercomstances prevent my population from enjoying that right

It is possible to get charged with a murder if the stakes are clear enough. But if some homeless dude came looking for water, he could be refused service and the owner would not get charged with. Murder if he later died of dehydration.

The store owner is not a medical professional and has no duty to help, assuming he even knew the man was at risk of dying.

if there were a scenario where any person refused to save the life of another person i guarentee the probability of it not having some justification behind it besides "my bias" is going to be low as fuck

i dont think this scenario exists outside of a water shortage

i mean yes we could hypothosis it, but we can hypothosis any thing imaginible

sargon wanted to make a point where realism wasent up for debate rather simply to defame his ideological opponent who didint think to call him on his bullshit

The family may have a right to sue you

ok so its under civil law system which means that if you are not endangering your own life and its reasonable you have a duty to save a life

So if you don't have any idea how to perform cpr right, and you are afraid you will do more harm then good to that person, you could get arrested for not helping them?

see duty to rescue https://archive.is/20121211145958/http://law.missouri.edu/peters/t2syllabus.html

depends on how reasonable that seems

but giving someone a glass of water would be reasonable

is it reasonible while water is rationed?

I don't see that specify civilians

yes i can play whataboutery too

yes its reasonable

no it isint

its reasonibility is subjective to your own prediction for the sustanibility of that resource when it is scarce

unless... as its already stated in the law... its endangering your life imminently... but.. none of that matters.. as the example states if you had plenty of water, would you help and he said no

in the context that resource is no longer scarce which is a context basicly everywhere in america (except cali ironicly) then its unreasonible because it doesent pose any risk to you

plus the fact.. he would help a white man but not a black man... so clearly the life in danger is not an issue in this case

if you can run out of something then you have to reason your risk and theres no law nuanced enough to messure that

In most if not all states anyone who is some kind of first responder has a duty to rescue. Unlike Europe, where it is everyone.

then the law is wrong

EMTs are not required to rescue?

That is first responders.

end of the day... he defines who he'd help by the colour of their skin... I wouldnt classify him as a "good guy"

Emt, fire fighter, police, coast gaurd

we are talking about jareds hypothetical scenario where hes changed the law to, thats something you also have to consiter when you bring law to argue against a hypothetical right

In the us, there is no such law for civs

if a black guy said I wouldnt p*ss on a white guy if he was on fire.. i wouldnt say "that guy seems like a good intelligent guy"

Instead we have laws protecting civs if they help

wacka your taking the extreme as if it matters

he could have just said, "well they should"

to reiterate
*if there were a scenario where any person refused to save the life of another person i guarentee the probability of it not having some justification behind it besides "my bias" is going to be low as fuck
i dont think this scenario exists outside of a water shortage
i mean yes we could hypothosis it, but we can hypothosis any thing imaginible
sargon wanted to make a point where realism wasent up for debate rather simply to defame his ideological opponent who didint think to call him on his bullshit*

and even in a non extreme case, they first example was, lets say a black man was just passing through the ethno state to get to another place, would you serve him a glass of water... I mean.. is it so difficult to do that

its their right not to but again water is a public utility so you dont serve it in the united states

i mean its not currently their right but in the hypothetical it would be

i also reiterate
*i can not create a right for people to have the sovernignty to refuse serving people without scenarios of personal bias influincing how that right is applied. however if i thought this right was worth having in my country i wouldent let those rare and extreme cercomstances prevent my population from enjoying that right*

its a matter of principle not to be forced by the law to serve people until they violate their own right to be served which the west has abandoned that i think jared and many libritarians would like to see restored

doesent even matter if its not even applied by anyone in the society

but the whole ethno state is anti libertarian

I mean ... its not like a black man can say, wont serve me? ok Ill set up my own shop across the road from you... oh wait..

the one im hearing about from this very limited discussion sounds libertarian

yeah.. libertarian for the huwhite guy

ive also heard jared state that people will form their own ethnostates if you simply dont redistribute them by gentrifying certain areas or ghettofying others

even within the same country

so i kinda assume hes of the more freedom to associate group

not to mention ive heard him literally say he supports freedom of association

I get that for class/wealth... but on an ethnic basis.. I doubt it

i kinda agree

with jared that is

i live in america, theres a reason we still have cultural towns dispite being a mixing pot

melting pot*

well actually we arnt a melting pot

its more like a stew rather than a gravy

yeah i think the US is kinda unique when it comes to race... europe is more bothered about nationality than ethnicity

except all those muslum ghettos you have 😛

I dont any other countries separates black people like when you say you have americans and "african americans"

kind of shows taht if you remove National differences, people will find something else to bicker over

in the UK if you called a black british guy "african british" you would probably get a punch

yeah, but in the UK if you call someone a fairy you also get a punch

we do that so that the police know who stole your iphone

and same with every other country I believe

use to get a punch for a different reason 😛

buts its like your sort of saying... theres amerians .. and then not really americans

it wasent our choice to call them african americans

those are called "Commies" i believe

like I would say a white guy born and raised in africa, is more african than a black guy born and raised in america

we prefered different language in the past

it was african americans who chose to be called african americans

and we dont call everyone else american

african americans are actually the only ethnic group called american

what about Italian Americans?

oh wait i forgot native americans

nah italians are just white or caucasian

its weird.. to me ... its like everyone is trying to distance themselves from america

or european

nigga its not our choice

its the fuckin gobberment

it is your choice... you have free speech

you can say american

in current times, i'd be american over any other nation anyday :S

its not free speech were talking about though

your talking about government definitions of people that are on every thing offical we have to sign

theyre as african as you or I

especially in school

as in distant ancestors may have been african

wacka if you want to know the way people talk in america, we call people by skin color and only recently started saying 2 groups are american and ironicly both are minoritys

though atleast one of them has genetic heritage for this land

the reason we call people by skin color or nationality is because we have every skin color and nationality here in droves

we all potentially have genetic heritage from africa... but black doesnt mean recent... they could be from austrailia, or the carribean...

im not even going to get into that because its a tangent

but we tend to call anyone hispanic mexican because thats the majority, tend to call african americans black, though they are trying to change that, we use to call natives "indians" but it kinda makes sence to change that, we call indians "indian" we call anyone from the middle east "middle easterners" because we cant tell the difference, everyone from asia is asian except the ones who are russian or west asian, and white people are white nomatter where your from

thats how the people of my country think on average

and that could be a reason for the political outrage stemming in the US

or not outrage.. but.. you know... the general constant bringing up of race

if you let people just associate freely without the government giving certain groups more rights than others and more privilage than others by law then maybe we wouldent be pissed about it either

but the UK does it a little bit too... like for example... why put out statistics on race?

dude your country is racist af to white people

like my country aint got shit on the levels of racial backstabbing yours does

like we know almost exactly how much crime a white man commits relative to a black man... but we dont know by hair colour

neither do we

yeah... but why do we collect those stats?

ok we have all the info of individual crimes.. but why do stats on those

racial profiling is useful

what if we learned that people with red hair caused more crime relatively than brown haired people... will that help us in some way?

does red hair cause crime?

it actually does, because it allows you to zoom closer to the issue

what if we learned that more people wearing a purple hat caused crime than people wearing gray beanies... is that going to help us?

it might but really youd be better just talking about different kinds of white people if you want to talk hair color because lets be realistic, aint no black people with blonde or red hair

It can too actually, colors have been proven to provoke different reactions

also a reason you migth not profile on hair is cosmetics

Because identity politics

identity politics is t3h gay

wacka for some reason only muslum people in your country do honor killings

Identity politics is shiite

some muslims... barely any

that said, if you wanna solve a problem you have to identify the cause

Most eastern religions have honour killings

yet all honor killings are muslum

its almost like theres a connection

Islam is the only Abrahamic one, as far as I'm aware

yeah .. one or 2 extreme sects

almost like thats useful information for police to study and train on

But it's the only religion that advocates honor killing

Among the major ones, that is

im just explaining why we collect criminal data

because criminal data is useful when the police arnt incompatent

I don't see why that data would be useful, unless the police is focusing on ending radicalization

Or for profiling

its for profiling

Oh, OK then

I don't see the point of racial profiling personally, though

Its for identifying the root cause imo,

For example
If you have people of a certain culture committing honor killings, its not exactly useful to look at the cultures that DON'T commit honor killings

its also useful politically for the groups of people who want to try and fix problems (whether or not they have good ideas)

@Dr.Wol I understand based on ideology, but race is what confused me

i never said ideology, i said culture

Class based profiling also makes sense

Or even location based

im not a police officer however if i was at a crime scene compiling evidence, if there was a certain kind of crime this evidence pointed strongly toward then that might be the first avenue i pursue, and then perhaps that crime is more common among certain groups (racial or not) of people and then that may also potentally help the investigation

its a narrow line, but there IS good reason for racial too, because you need it for scientific elimination,

Say you're looking at a crime area, and the overwhelming majority is black people, You have to find out WHY that is
You shouldn't act on it and just assume "oh, majority is black, therefore ALL black"
But you should eliminate as much factors as you can

gang crime often points to minoritys in the us so thats why its a statistic, if it doesent then it would probably also point to class and location

@Arch-Fiend but all crime is popular among all groups. It seems as wide as profiling people by blood type

yeah thats not true

its not equal by any means

I see the point of community based profiling

Like a ghetto

But by race?

weve literally compiled statistics that imply racial biases to certain crimes

Maybe for data that is used by politicians, I suppose. But I don't see the practical purpose, you know?

there is a practical purpose, but people don't wanna discuss it openly because its considered racist

its not something we prosicute on, like they dont just pull a random person off the street, but when you have a gang crime you look for a minority first until you have evidence telling you shouldent

thats just how it is

Now that I think about it, there's a few situations I can think of where race can be used

Like if a gang shooting happens

the only reason we know gang violence is related to race is because we compiled statistics for it, before that we only had intuition

I know, I get it

I just didn't consider all scenarios

obviously the usefulness for any amount of profiling has be known to law enforcement for a long time though which is why profiling and compiling statistics is a very old method of investigation

at this point we just record everything we imagine to be useful

if a white person is killed with a note left "death to white people" and the body is found in a minority dominate area, does it make sense to look at white people first?

well

i mean, if you find out the deceased knew an SJW who was white thats a bit different

but

i think hate crimes against white people while not new have the potental to have new cercomstances that might change how they are profiled

or not, certainly 10 years ago youd be looking for anyone but a white person

yeah

now when there is a supposed hate crime, you need to look at the group it was commited against first

given the number of hoax hate crimes

Democratic socialism is different from social democracy, right? From my understanding, one is about replacing capitalism, and the other is about reforming it.

lets face it, both are about replacing it

the only change is
"We're TAKING your money for others"

Is changed to

"We're GIVING your money to others"

yea

DSA is anti capitalist

wants to give means of production to workers

I've just wondered if people are mixing up their terms when they say "democratic socialism."

Are they against private property, for instance?

can't speak for the DSA, cuz i haven't looked into them

but any democratic socialist, or social democrat

Eventually ends up with wanting to redistribute means of production, which ends up negating private property

social democrat is like scandinavia

they want a capitalistic welfare state

remove the qualifiers

Social democrat is a certain kind of democrat

Democratic socialist is a certian kind of socialist

Democratic socialist is just below the center line to the far left

authoritarian socialist is top left

I can agree with that discription, although i will say that the social democrats are a slippery slope

in Europe for example, the labor parties are often "social democrats" and in order to buy votes they wanna increase the welfare state,
Which is a slope that slowly starts claiming more, until people just pay the majority they earn into taxes

and Norway i believe pays its welfare state with state oil

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/12511042313

Seems to me using these terms interchangeably is a bad idea.

they aren't the same,

Socialists (Democratic Socialists) wanna abolish capitalism all together,
Social Democrat want to have capitalism, but with high taxes to fund for public services

The issue with Social Democrats though is that they slowly keep wanting more public services, which leads to more taxes,

So in the end, instead of distributing the means of production, you just distribute the produce, having the same end result

as an extra example:
Under socialism, the poorest get free healthcare, so you can see a doctor.
Under social democracy, the poorest get subsidiaries, so they can pay for a doctor.

its not a literal example, but it gives you an idea of the end-goal difference

Social democracy is Sargon

Democratic socialism is Jeremy Corbin

Basically