So for example, someone who's commited a serious enough crime can no longer legally purcahase a firearm. Similarly, it might be reasonable to limit that person's ability to contribute to decisions on when firearms should be used, or perhaps what restrictions there should be on the purchase of firearms.

did I do a smart, Dan? I hope so because I don't think the proper conclusions on this subject are quite so obvious, and I'm still trying to figure out what I think

i think its fair

i think the only other point that could be made is if a felon gets his rights taken away you dont get to pick and choose which ones you get back

so if you want to give a felon the right to vote back

you better give them the right to firearm ownership as well

i think a better question comes into the idea of positive and negative rights

and why being forced to pay into a positive rights system is immoral

Haven't heard this distinction before.

just the idea being Taxation is theft

if you choose to pay into a system like Social Security or you have a choice to opt out it removes the monopoly of force from the equation

and the system could only get better

but if it is forced the system only devolves because non net contributers to the system will be the majority and they will vote for more

but it removes force only for that particular right, no?

yes

but this is more abstract than anything else

if being a citizen of a country wasnt inherent it was something that had to be earned

the system could only benefit

non net contributers could not subvert the system to their will

Well here we go Dan, these are the words to the argument I had drifting around in my head unable to articulate.

the problem of democracy was disscussed by our founding fathers at length

it needs checks and balances

but they could have never predicted the idea of positive rights

Yeah man that's a really helpful concept. So libertarians basically don't like positive rights for the most part, sort of as an inherent general rule?

I like my positive rights

only if they are held as a monopoly by the government

Positive right are more of a pragmatic argument

if you had a choice between social secutiy or keeping your money an investing it yourself

social security could only benifit because now it has to compete

You can invest your money here

it would have to provide more positives than negatives to survive

but here you dont have a choice if you can keep the money to pay into SS

You can split the tax money you have to pay between the goverment and private investment here

So a positive right is the notion that something is required to be provided to you. So if someone *other* then govt is required to provide it, then it's okay?

if someone was providing a service to you

it would no longer be a right

it would just be something you choose to pay into

It is more of a positive privelege

I go away for an hour and now I have to catch up on a debate about voting

have fun dude

k bai franti

I am staying

oh I see

I already went away

Regarding voting, You are part of the citizenry, as whole the goverment serves the whole citizenry

Sure, so one example of a pretty solid positive right would be police protection. But then again... that's tricky. As far as I'm aware, police aren't actually required to protect you, correct?

Police are for law enforcment

police protect property rights

They are not a protection sevice

They solve crime

Police presence serves as a deterrent

they are a physical manifistation of the idea of protecting private property

so i would put a police force as more of an example of the nessesary evil of government

So if we're to say that your body is your property and you have a right to your property, are police required to protect you?

i wouldnt say so

i would say that it comes down to the individual to protect him/herself

Goverment will always be very powerfull because people like beeing told what to do

They just dont admit it

Protecting private and public property.
Or people as a whole.
If everyone just "Protected themselves" what's to stop a bunch of gangs roaming the streets?
Sure people could form a mob and stop it. But isn't it better it gets stopped before that happens ?

You pay protection money

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4246055-Fix-NICS-Act-Bill-Text.html

gotta read through to make sure there is no radical gun control measures

https://twitter.com/BasedStickNight/status/931287132513083392

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM_ierxfkV4

check out how EA's stock dropped overnight on Fri

I will be happy if either their developers (or execs or whoever keeps adding these things) or consumers learn from this. But neither will

Most stocks dropped

I think it's unrelated

Politics

More like

Lame

gotem

Anyone here?

Nah

sometimes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40-rFt4ZLnQ

Friendly reminder, BlackRock is currently managing more than $6T

That is way too much money to leave in the hands of the Orcs. Doomhammer can't be trusted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNNHhzjWP-g&t=23s

this one made me cringe a bit

i'm about to listen to it

or i wil leave ir for tomorrow

Which is cringier? Vee or Yee?

I don't think either is worth the time.

At least Yee has the excuse of being an uneducated brat that found fame through making offensive jokes and criticism on the internet.

Yee's position was pretty bad

He could have delivered the same criticism with less obscenity and not gotten into so much trouble.

His idol is TJ, so it's not like he could have been any wiser.

TJ?

TJ Kirk

oh the amazing atheist?

i never really liked his stuff

I like Vee

Vee's a good goy

Vee is my favorite Gypsy

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23722684_540616229614248_9010336531459019627_n.jpg?oh=021a75750f69b24fa364200df1cc27d0&oe=5AAD7E38

The Amazing Bananatheist

Avoided... So it was legal

The man Jon Haidt! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEnpsxu-3gQ

haha I didn't know it was vee until he paused and started talking, I think he's hilarious in his delivery of points

but jesus christ this yee guy hs to be trolling right? please?

A lot of people think so

I honestly couldn't finish the video because it was so... well dealing with a person who wants to justify pedophilia. As far as I'm aware, that kid is completely serious, and honestly it doesn't surprise me that much. Hearing him talk and observing his mannerisms, I can see how someone such as him who's obviously just a completely fringe social weirdo, for lack of a better term, could feel as though they're pioneering some untrodden socio-cultural revolution. Characters like him are made that much more comfortable in their dangerously deviant thoughts by the modern liberal social justice culture of explaining away everybody's imperfections.

But I think we'd all like to believe he's just making it up.

Even so, pushing such an "agenda", even as a troll, could lead to unwanted consequences for society.

Right. Trolling can be just as harmful as genuine stupidity.

Or genuine whatever you're pretending to be as a troll.

Yeah. There are certainly elements in Hollywood who'd like something like what Yee is advocating to become acceptable.

What's the chance of him being feed bullshit by someone else?

I suppose it's there, but I don't care to speculate

You're thinking maybe he's read some book or watched some video that sent him down this path?

Yup

Or you're saying someone is directly manipulating him to act as a proxy for their own purposes?

I haven't seen the video tbh, I should watch it today

The first option, he might have seen a thing or 2, and convinced himself of it

Reminds me that I need to watch Logicked's video on it

Sure, it's possible. It would seem such an ideological stance could only be perpetuated by a pretty staunch echo chamber and motivated reasoning. In the video he mentions how there are supposedly innumerable stories of sexual relationships between adults and children where both parties are satisfied or pleased with the interaction.

So he's certainly consumed these stories or at least an abstract reference to them, such as his own, from somewhere.

I'm sure any fan of freud would have a lot to say about a kid like him.

I would like to believe it's just being naive and not thinking critically enough. It strikes me more as he (and a lot of the other pedo-defenders I've seen) don't seem to understand that children just aren't mentally or emotionally capable of consenting, regardless of how much they feel it was okay once they're adults or how much they seem okay with it as children. It's damaging on levels that aren't always immediately obvious, but they don't seem to consider any of these things and think there might be exceptions to all of them when there really isn't.

I guess, some of them deliberately don't want to admit the

That *

I get defending it between a 16 years old and a adult

But between a kid, with 10 or 8 years? Nope

It's the same thing as the hormones suppressors to kids

I feel it's like they're taking *too* technical a stance with it. Like, "children are just younger people, we should give them the same options as an adult"

When anybody who knows the first thing about kids, and teens too, knows they're vastly different from an adult in so many ways.

And easy to convince too

Just got back from voting in a local election, voted for 2x 60+ year old men due to them being honest on their pro-science stance towards "alternative" medicine. Patriarchy +1

CONSTITUTION For The New Socialist Republic In North America http://www.revcom.us/socialistconstitution/SocialistConstitution-en.pdf

By Bob Avakian

that name

rings a bell.

leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party and founder of Refuse Fascism

Also this is an extremely painful thing to listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4g

this fucking guy is so unbelievably ill-informed it hurts

Sargon said he will do a video on it

this really makes me wonder how many other times this sort of thing has happened

I don't get why this guy says he doesn't want to call Richard Spencer a leader of the alt-right because that would "give him too much legitimacy". Why wouldn't you want to call somebody exactly what they are to deal with them appropriately, *especially* if you're recognizing the authority that they have? I'm not gonna skirt around calling Bob Avakian the leader of RevCom, that's exactly who he is and that's exactly why he's rephrehensible. However, I think I can answer my own question. They make it a constant practice to not call people what they really are, ceaselessly accusing Jordan Peterson of all manner of absurdities.

They're so goddamn afraid of looking like they're stepping outside the approved virtue signals.

Goddamn this is frustrating.

Jordan Peterson is totally Hitler though.

And I bet they wouldn't call Hitler the leader of the Nazi party to not legitimize him.

lol exactly

the guy doing all the talking in this video oughta get slapped across the cheek with a constitution

@Thomas the Sowell Train [USA] >This isnt up for debate >The scientific method can prove anything fully.
Its like this guy has double think down packed. He knows the scientific method yet he can make absolute claims. Also i would like see evidence of the claims he made against JP

https://www.wlu.ca/academics/faculties/faculty-of-arts/faculty-profiles/nathan-rambukkana/index.html

This dude has his own website http://complexsingularities.net/

where he posted a whole letter of apology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWSbWC-QfaY

Gotta live the whole "we're sorry we got caught, we'll take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again" apology.

To be fair, that's what I would think if I was in Lindsay's position.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/933068639867084800

@✿ Mittens ✿ What do you make of this Lindsay Shepherd situation?

Still think JP is a charlatan when his predictions are coming true?

"That's no apology. It's a lie."

I read that in JP's voice

that's nooo aporlorgy, it's a laaiiii!

That's NO JOKE!

AH'M NAWT DOIN IHT

AND THAT'S THAT.

ROUGHLY SPEAKING.

https://youtu.be/KjYe6kJKumY

Make some good legal gun vids

1776 will commence again

>homosexual

^identifies as a demi

I identify as a demigod.

Something something Net Neutrality

Yes, indeed.

And according to one of the senate candidates in my state supporting Net Neutrality = being a socialist who hates the free market.

Or something.

fuck net neutrality

its annoying

If you're gonna have the govt regulate, atleast have it be the FTC

Tbh I don't really know much about it

Haven't been on reddit this week because of that NN shit

literally every fucking sub

Tfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MECcIJW67-M

https://archive.org/stream/BezmenovLoveLetterToAmerica/YuriBezmenov-LoveLetterToAmerica_djvu.txt

This video is a joke

also, anyone who have this on their homes

is a lunatic

What do you mean, a joke? Is it fake?

it's ridiculous

Crowder kinda forces something that alexia didn't said

but at the same time

alexia is ridiculous too

Did he force something?

Kinda funny to see the ignorant atheists in the comments claiming that Jesus indeed was a fictional character. Shows you there are plenty of atheists that just have faith on what somebody else told them and didn't verify.

They *know* Christianity *has to* be false, but they don't know which parts. So they just assume *everything is false*.

jesus the historical figure probably existed but his name wasn't jesus and obviously most of the events attributed to him were exaggerated or fabricated

There's some evidence that Jesus existed, and it wasn't just a random dude that happened to be called Jesus, it was the Jesus that lead to the creation of Christianity. You can argue whether he had magical powers or not, but there's just about as much evidence of him existing and appearing in public as most other figures of antiquity.

the name jesus literally did not exist yet

jesus is a greek version of jeshua which is the aramaic form of joshua, which is hebrew

there are no historical records of jesus of nazareth outside of the bible

there are records of people with the same name, but it was a very common name

something like turning water to wine was probably noteworthy enough to mention *somewhere*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Authenticity_and_historical_value

The Jews also recorded it.

>Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfCkp0Juao

whoops.

nearly forgot to vote

probably says something about the general enthusiasm for this election tho

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/free-speech-and-the-paradox-of-tolerance-e0547aefe538

https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175
Called it

@Durtle02 "bullshit!!!!"

Lol

how the fuck does it have 9k likes

they can say whatever they want, and then they can do whatever they want (even if it contradicts what they told you) without you knowing what the hell they're doing

that's what a private company can do, I will never understand americans

Yeah! Trust us, we're Comcast, you have our word 😉

Comcast is senpai

Comcast : Bend over

I just upgraded to 1gb internet for 70

Its not all bad

There wouldnt be a problem If there were many ISP in a region

I just think is is a massive overreaction

There will be cons and pros

Gotchya, Dan 😉

There are legitimate conserns

But NN was only in place for two years

The ISP acted like there was NN before it was passed in 2015

I havent seen any fracturing before it was made official

that's probably not accurate - what you should say is "we presume ISPs acted like there was NN before 2015", because american ISPs/telecoms were actively engaged in lobbying to _stop_ net neutrality being implemented in europe from 2004 and onwards until it was enacted around 2011

NN is protected here in Europe

The image you have senn about paying differentry forsocial media apps is for mobile data foe wich NN doesnt apply

Good, because nobody uses mobile data for internet access.

Yet

I keep seeing people arguing in favour of NN because "there's only one ISP in my area and-" but noone seems to have asked why there's only one ISP in their area. I might do some digging myself, but off the cuff it really wouldn't surprise me if a government organisation were at least partially responsible for that, be it at state, local, or federal level. For all the internet problems we have in my country, a lack of choice between ISPs is rarely one of them

You need the government's permission to lay wires around the land.

Also, now that the government has *less* influence in the mobile telco department, it's cheaper to ditch your landline phone and just use your mobile phone for local, state and even international calls

Mobile is easier on the infrastucture

The permission to build infrastructure often comes with exclusivity guarantees. As in, you won't have to spend your own money digging up pipes to burrow wires, only to have your competitor use the same pipes for his wires.

I'm also saying the government isn't playing favourites amongst the service providers in the mobile telco marketplace, or at least not to the extent that they are in other areas

That's why usually the duopoly is internet-by-phone-line or internet-by-cable.

Wires should be used like pipes

I still remember when an ISP approached my parents, who managed a townhouse complex in Sydney, with the opportunity to connect NBN cable to their complex

Parents agreed

Lay them down then let them be used by any company who pays for maintanence

Same thing with poles, for plebs using above-ground wiring.

Then NBNco, a government-owned corporation, barged in and basically declared "you can't do that! that's *our* job!"

this must've been around... whew.. 2011? I'd have to ask them next time I see them

But anyway

basically, no NBN for several more years