I think off of this understanding or rather lack of understanding of non existence is bringing us closer to ancapistahn

Why should the state exist if nothing else exists already

we actually already concluded the state doesnt exist

so i'm opposing nothing

You’re not opposing

I oppose your lack of opposition

Because you are nothing

but theoretically i could be

Neither of you are opposing

does hypothetical ideas exist?

maybe they just hypothetically exist

Can a hypothetical be more hypothetical than hypothetical?

if the state exists in theory, you could oppose it, in theory

I oppose this discussion, I'm not big brain enough to ascend to this level of metaphysical discourse

What's the difference between a hypothetical and reality?

well nothing if reality doesnt exist, or possibly the hypothetical is more real than reality

the difference between an idea and reality seems to be time, though

if you wait a certain time, someone could make the idea reality

And effect on others

hypthetically, i mean, if reality existed

What's the difference between real life and fantasy if they can have as powerful of an influence on your mind

literally nothing in that context

you cant prove that your memories are real

For all we kow we could have been born yesterday

indeed

That's a really long day

Maybe I was born two days ago

Do we not die every night?

it only feels long because your memories of the passage of time

Wake up as someone new

you could have been born a second ago

Is the color I see as blue the same as what you would perceive as orange through my eyes?

Nobody knows how our minds actually work

My blue is better than yours

That's all that matters

I'm so sorry to hear that your crimson isn't as good as mine though

i need glasses, so either way the shape is more blurry for me

But if nothing is real, then what are glasses?

What if everyone's favorite color is the same

they are invisible to mirrors

We just call them different names

It turns out everybody in the world just percieves the same shade of gray as different colors and they all happened upon it as their favorite?

no, since we aren't sure if our colors are the same and I like my blue and you like your red

but your red is the same as my blue

That's what I was meaning to hint at

then ya

im still trying to understand jaden. you only know for sure what you can see with your own eyes. but you cant see your eyes with your eyes so you cant confirm they are real. so how can we trust our mirror reflection with our eyes if we cant confirm that our eyes are real?

we would have to trust our eyes with the reflection before we can confirm that they are real to begin with

its not a strong foundation of logical deduction

jaden could just be a rigorous logician.

by the way do you think insanity is a trained skill?

@NativeInterface would ancap be totally against tax on goods?

indirect taxes that is

yeah, it's against any 3rd party who interjects and demand fees and expect compliance without consent

if i can't do it, the state can't do it

if i cant tax your goods, the state cant tax my goods

because equal rights

The key point being compliance. If it's voluntery, then yes.

If it's voluntary it is called insurance

Or is a type of insurance

I can agree with that. Whatever vehicle voluntary travels in gets us to the same point

Anyways. If there are more workers than needed in a society, then the employers, assuming there are no regulations or close to none, are going to exploit that (human nature) . However, I think the inverse is also true, if there aren't enough workers to go around the workers are gonna exploit that. Employers are always working to make things more efficient and at least long term, reduce the number or workers necessary as a consiquence (spelling?) so even if we would make it so that there is a job for everyone and no more or less (let's assume for the sake of argument that everyone are equally good for each job) that equilibrium will sooner or later be thrown out of balance so arguing for such a society is unnecessary

What can be done about that to remove exploitation from either side completely and that is sustainable (to come with new regulations for each little thing is not sustainable imo, you're welcome to try and change my mind)

I am aware that it might be necessary to create other problems in order to reach that, but I am not interested in that atm. Just if there is any way to reach the relationship between worker and employer that I mentioned.

A related problem is how long should an employer be aloud to "force" a worker to work. As long as there are more people without a job the employers are going to reduce wages so workers will have to work longer (assuming no regulations are in place) in order to afford to live (the minimum wage debate).

attempting to remove extremes is always going to be a receipy for deseaster

life is constantly in flux and the amount of force required to maintain an strict status quo is usually frowned upon. it is better to make a society in which all people in it have the power to pull the pendulum back in their direction

this way when things start to get too close to one extreme or the other, the opposite side will be able to galvanize and pull things back towards them

thus things will fluctuate around the desired balance point, and most of the time be within some acceptable deviation for most people in the system.

I concur

Generational Pendulums

One for every issue no matter how minor

Sometimes they sync up

Sometimes the gay bot stops me from speaking

lmaoi

so when mao has pendulum hitler should be able to pull it back, so that everyone can commit genocide their own way

everyone wins

actually, both of them are socialist

yeah but nazis were anti communists, right?

true... although on what issues idk

fighting over who gets to genocide the jews perhaps

The Oakland Raiders are anti Pittsburgh Steelers, and vice versa.

They're not both anti-football.

its kind of my point that both sides are similar, but they are still opponents, so you could end up with a pendulum swinging between two flavors of insanity

but both are authoritarian and socialist, and the extreme of both. and, more importantly, tried to keep the pendulum on their side

the pendulum wasn't swinging

well consider the democrats and republicans pendulum

this is what happens when you want to stop the pendulum from swinging.

fucking bot gonna take your damn balls

seriously

"?? <#463068752725016579> is in slowmode. You will be able to post there again in 0.1 second, alright?" like really?!

@JDM_WAAAT can you turn off censorship bot?

it's not a censorship bot, don't bother me with this shit.

Type what you want to say in one message. It's not complicated.

@NativeInterface correct me if i'm wrong, but free market capitalism is basically based on this idea. If a company gets too greedy, competition will spring up to pull the pendulum back, preventing monopoly. Thus, things will ebb and flow back and forth, hopefully, the theory is, near a happy center.

i guess you could look at it that way, but i don't. a pendulum only moves in two directions so it represents a dichotomy, so i wouldn't use that metaphor.

but i get that you're arguing for the ebb and flow part of the pendulum, so i see what you're saying.

i just think false dichotomies and middle ground fallacies is the reason the u.s. is shit

it depends on the context of the pendulum i guess

the happy center of republicrats foreign politics of ponies and rainbows

does a pendulum only move in 2 directions?

i was thinking of a grandfather clock i guess

a pendulum is a weight at the end of a string fixed to a point. if left to swing, at least here on earth, it will slowly move around in a circle. Each time it swings back and forth, it is never quite hitting the same spot as before as the earth rotates under it.

i guess each democratic and republican president are less democratic and republican than the previous one. i don't know if political parties have any principles anymore.

or if they ever did

i don't think they ever did. some candidates tow party lines better than others, but trump ran as a republican... but is he a really a republican?

at first i got the impression he was more republican than mainstream republicans, but now i just think he's a flip-flopper

people who remain devote to a party may create false dichotomies, but if you think of the political spectrum as more of a sphere, republican and democrats are like saying the west and the east.... technically the west is east of the east as the east is east of the west. its a circle, keep travelling in one direction you will end up where you started without hitting an edge. unless you draw artificial lines

and you can still go up or down

horseshoe theory

you have 3 dimensions you can move in that we have narrowed down to 2 vague groups

in a sense you could say that, head east far enough from the west coast you will end up back at the west coast

could you give a political real life example of this?

I think it's more suitable to think of them as poles

Rather than heading right/left

depends on what you mean political example? I think the fact we have a bunch of candidates that are not just exact copies of their supposed parties, and outliers who just sometimes end up on the ballot as a random party that they don't fit nicely into as proof enough that the democrats are republican split is just a 2d cross section of 3d space

which creates, as you have accurately pointed out, a false dichotomy.

it has removed an entire axis

haha

I won't daddy.

Everything goes into separate lines.

Every issue can be condensed to a yes and a no with caveats between

it often takes awhile to draw that specific end

in math, to find the volume of an object, you take basically a near infinite number of 2D cross sections along one axis and basically add up all their areas. If you look at the swinging pendulum's path, it might look like it is following a sin wave oscillation at any given point along the axis of time. However, if you actually add up all these cross sections of time, it will fill the whole graph.

lol

youtube has competitors, but nobody knows about them, because everyone is hanging out on youtube.
i think youtube screwing up is a good thing, because the competitors needs some traffic, and people could use some more options.
to complain about youtube making people unable to speak is in my mind accepting their market dominance and wanting to maintain their dominance by keeping their policies acceptible.
why not just celebrate their failure and help boycott them?

That's what I've been wondering about, not the boycott, but why many want to get the government involved, declare them public utilities, instead of just use their failures to bolster the competition.

because they are dumb

why else

Can someone explain to me why workers unions get to charge people that are not members of the union? Where is the incentive for the union to represent the workers if they don‘t have to do their job and still get paid?

similar reason a doctor can't tell you how much an x-ray costs.

bullshit.

Well... i don‘t get charged for x-rays so i don‘t care - not american so i don‘t know what that reference means 😉

because the union gets to dictate terms, because they represent a collective of individuals.

IE like insurance companies

Hmm... but do they represent the individuals if they have no incentive to do that?

the reason Unions get to charge non-members

is cuz otherwise, you'd have people not sign up, but still benefit if the Union gets something positive for the workers

so you can't get freeloaders

but this way, yes its corruptable, cuz the union gets money no matter what

and they use that money for fancy things and campaign donations etc

Tim pool did talk about the union at one of the places he worked at.

Cant recall which but he di share those sentiments.

@GingaBomber yeah tim did a good job explaining the unions on vice were he used to work at

I believe this is the vid https://youtu.be/XVy5gCrm5UU

I thought sweden was far left when it came to unions but I had no idea that there are countries where non-union members have to pay.
As far as I know that is absolutely not the case in sweden

People that kind of brag that the union is unnecessary get a lot of critique from union members for freelancing, although half complain that they don't appreciate the past things the unions did, which imo is retarded because by that logic you must be a nazi if you use the autoban or like that it exists. Or think that the infrastructure in Germany is a good thing for trade or whatnot because the nazis got almost all of that started

unions are not bad, but they also have more power than they should

unions should not get to charge non-union members. If unions are necessary in any particular industry, people will join a union. if they have achieved their goal in balancing the power out, people will stop joining the union.

Why are unions necessary, and collective bargaining not enough?

I have only ever heard bad things about unions when people talk about when they were in a union

When I got an envelope telling me how I could sign up for the union at my work and read the cost I threw it in the trash.

well you would have to define what a union is.

if a group of people team up in a company, is that not a union? You have to be very careful to define what and what is not considered a union. Any group of people usually form a structure of leadership.

it is not

teaming up for the sake of negotiation is collective bargaining

Union is an organization

and when is the line crossed?

when the group teaming up gives itself a name?

Have administration and charge members

what if they didn't charge members, but accepted donations?

In that case would depend but leans away from being a typical Union

this is why i say you have to be careful what is and is not considered a union

Course, if it is something that accepts donations, sounds like it is highly susceptible to corruption

Isnt a Union just like an Alliance?

a group formed by individual units working towards a common goal?

any power structure is highly susceptible to corruption.

hence why people should be allowed to leave, and not forced to pay things if not involved.

in a workers Union, the goal is for fair treatment etc

European union has a goal of working together to improve overal status

etc?

Generally when people talk about unions they are talking about the ones with administrations and cost of admission

workers unions that is

and that is why they currently suck, at least in america.

but the idea of what is a "typical" union is probably different depending on cultures.

I'm talking about American

so, if you define a union as a collective of workers banding together in a group that expands outside any specific company, in an effort to remain connected and informed so they are not taken advantage of by their employer, then i say there can be times when they are necessary, but they are not always necessary.

however, if you are talking about what is especially legal mafia's, which is what current unions in the US are like, i agree they are not necessary.

yes I am talking about the legal mafias

yes, i agree. hence why i said they have too much power

The first one I might call collective bargaining

I think social media would be better if users hosted their content on their own platforms and third party apps could inject user content into their feeds instead of platforms like YouTube controlling all of the data and forcing users to comply with their restricting terms of service

you'd get the same issue,

the app could block the feeds/links/content from being sent over

Apps could still restrict content from their feeds but they couldn't monopolize the content and would allow for dozens of apps being able to share the same content.

the clips would still have to be hosted from somewhere, which would be susceptible too

There are hundreds of hosting companies world wide, it's unlikely all of them would activity sensor clips and even if that were to happen, creating a new hosting company is trivial compared to creating a new social media platform.

This idea however, would not be able to prevent ISPs or dns registrars from sensoring. You'd need a lower level solution to prevent that. But this would at least help remove links from the chain of sensorship

That’s called google

I propose a gaming debate. Legend of Zelda's Rito and Zora are not anthropomorphic (furries). Change my mind. <@&464233153654030360>

Fuck you you're just a furry in denial

define furry

accept that you want to fuck the anthro fish

hello?

Uh, scalies

oy vey, don't disturb me when I'm palying Crash Bandicoot

no

bad

mee6 keeps on supressing my posts

I can accept the Zora being alien and unique enough not to count as furry, but the Rito definitely are unless you're arguing that birds don't count because they lack fur

like wtf

I'm arguing that they're not human-shaped birds.

antros are antros

they are not human

BY THE WAY

Rito are actually evolved Zora.

is mee6 supressing you too?

What makes a fantasy race not an anthro, in your opinion?

i seen that blip off for me

You can say that they're their own race, but from a design standpoint they're absolutely anthropomorphized birds

they are literally a different intelligent species

In my opinion, they would be, by all definition, a form of x animal.

if a furry is a "anthropomorphized animal" then it would logically need to have a real-life counter part for this definition to work, i.e., fox-furry, horse-furry, etc

Hylians arent even human, they are more akin to elves

doesnt need to exist in real life to count
See: Dragons

but then it leaves out shit like dragons

it's all semantics

what is a furry even?

I actually associate Hylians more as humans, and the Zora as a type of sea elves.

OK, but that doesn't mean they aren't furry.

@Schedrevka define furry

anthropomorphized animal

Are Ewoks furries?

so it needs a real life counterpart?

different species imo

So, would you argue there's a distinction from an animal with human qualities

Ewoks are a different species imo

And a human with animal qualities?

Their real life counterpart is bird

as are Zora and Rita

They don't have a real life counterpart. They're given their wings by magic.

If you just took a picture of a rito and divorced it from its context in Zelda they would fit in perfectly well within furry shit

So if I took any furry character and gave it lore it would stop being furry?

humans dont have to be the only default intelligent life

If an Ewok is into humans and dresses like a human is that Ewok the equivalent to a furry?

at what point does something become furry? using rito as an example

is it the feathers, the beak, the talons on the toes

Furry defines a fetish isn't it?

They also absolutely have human form, not chicken legs or anything like that

Including hair.

Some of the Ninas from breath of fire are directly related to birds, are they furries?

The intent is what matters

More a subculture based on a common interest than just a fetish

There's lots of furry shit that isn't sexual, even if there is a TON of sexual furry shit

Unless the question is what are furries into

are humans furries because we're anthropomorphized monkeys?

That is why I say intent

Humans are already an animal

But you can't know the creator's intent

Two people could create the exact same thing and one could say 'it's furry' and the other not

yes

like mascots

Let's take it from a different angle, one of evolutionary development.

so what happens when the author never tells you? Is everything in a constant state of quantum furry because it's rarely explicitly stated?

How is it being used rather

schrodingers furry