Lord Ratner

Also, what is this post from 20 years ago? The boomers are now on welfare.

And that's why I'm okay with it. People like you will find a way to tie yourself in knots making it about everything else instead of their own responsibility for their actions, and nothing will happen. Thank you for proving my point. Bill Ackman didn't just wake up one day and decide to ruin some college kids' lives. Those *grown ass adults* proactively chose to do something following a tragedy. If no letter was written, no billionaire could sleuth. Does anyone here actually think the reason we stop being stupid as we age is because the numerical representation of how long we've been alive goes up? Absurd. It's because we exist in the world and start to see the consequences of actions. Cause and effect. It's experience. If you aren't old enough in college to be responsible for your actions, why do we think that you should be responsible for your actions when you are older than 22, or 25 as you wrote?

Yes, but then the follow up is, if losing a job offer is too much, what's the right punishment? So far all I hear is a whole bunch of nothing. No real consequences. So I'll take the Ackman approach. I would accept a year-long suspension as a fair punishment, but there's a 0% chance the universities take a stand on anything their DEI department doesn't explicitly forbid.

Pretty sure he never said that.

💯 I would say whenever you start drawing Social Security benefits, you're done voting. Once you become a ward of the state you have an incentive structure that no longer considers the long term success of the nation. All the conservative firebrands like my father who can quote the last 3 days of Fox News, but don't you DARE talk about reining in SS or Medicare spending, he earned that money! I've personally decided I will not vote for anyone over 65. That puts the president at 73-75 after two terms, which is right at the upper limit of where you can be reasonably sure the person is still sharp. Bonus points for getting under 55. This is a new red line for me after seeing Biden and Trump doing their amateur acting troop version of Grumpy Old Men, Mitch McConnell taking some involuntary naps at the podium, and Diane Feinstein literally dying from old age while still voting on Senate business. No more.

Exactly. Conservatives thought for decades that they didn't need to engage with this nonsense because it wouldn't survive a week in the real world. The business environment would crush whatever college nonsense the students had picked up. But it didn't work that way, the students forced their nonsense onto the corporate world, and now every major corporation in America has a DEI department. The pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction, but only after a complete takeover of the political and corporate world by this neo-marxist nonsense. I'm still a little conflicted on Bill Ackman jumping into the funny farm and going after the job offers of college students, but it might be the right amount of punishment for some of the absurdist shit that college kids believe they are free to say with impunity. If anything, that's the biggest lesson they need to learn, that opening your mouth almost always has consequences. I used to complain a lot that high school doesn't set anyone up for the real world, but now that college has just become high school part 2, we're sending 22-year-olds out into the world with absolutely no idea what they should be doing, as opposed to just 18-year-olds. The entire education system needs a reboot.

Power dynamics. The entire liberal philosophy has been pushed aside in favor of a simple hatred for hierarchies and those at the top. Since the top of most hierarchies (most, not *all*) in America are white Christian males, then the reflex is to side with whoever isn't one of those. It works great until you get into conflicts between two groups that are both lower on the totem pole. Sometimes it's easy to tell who has more power in the match up, and therefore who is the villain: Man vs woman - man bad White man vs White woman - White Man bad White woman vs Black Man - white woman bad Black woman vs Black gay woman - black woman bad Black Man vs gay Man - uh... Hmmm. Muslim man vs lesbian woman - well... It's... Trans woman vs lesbian woman - oh boy. But once you realize the foundation of the philosophy is simply "power bad," you start to understand it, and you can predict the position they will take with perfect accuracy. It's a philosophy built from jealousy and guilt, but remember that the jealousy is always stronger than the guilt. That's why wealthy liberals will decry school voucher programs, but still send their kids to private school. Well I'm not going to let my kids fall behind while we fix the problem......

I said multiple times, forced by the US. I do not care if Ukraine forces their men to fight. We have a draft as well. He wasn't in a "defensive position" because no one was going to attack Russia. Are we in a "defensive position" when Mexico elects an anti-US president? No. We aren't. It is Ukraine's job to decide what is worth fighting. It is our job to decide what is worth supporting. Mixing the two makes a false argument.

The Ukrainians are not being forced to fight. They are doing so (at a national level) of their own free will. Obviously they would not be able to do it without our support, but that doesn't change the fact that the United States is not forcing Ukraine into fighting for longer. So when people start talking about the morality of throwing Ukrainian bodies into the meat grinder, I find it curious that they do not consider the Ukrainian point of view on whether it is a worthwhile loss of life to resist Russia. Personally, I trust the Ukrainian perspective on whether you Ukrainian lives are worth resisting Russia. Certainly more so than I trust the opinion of Americans who, while many of us have served our country and suffered for it, none of us have been even remotely close to living under an authoritarian boot. The Ukrainian memory goes back a while. I said from the start that I believe the concept of sovereignty is vital in both the moral sense and in preserving some sort of global stability. So I'm inclined to support any country that is in a war of sovereignty, which Ukraine very much is. Arguing about Russian borders from before the Cold war seems silly and irrelevant to me, as the USSR waged a decades long war to build their empire and lost. Losing the western territories was part of that loss. There is no allowance to the concept of sovereignty for historical borders. I also do not believe as many populist republicans seem to believe that there is a world where we can isolate and avoid conflict. I see the coming storm as inevitable, and given the opportunity to annihilate the fighting forces of one of the most likely major adversaries in the coming conflict, I say we take it. Again, I would not support expending American lives to do so, and I certainly wouldn't support forcing the Ukrainians to expend their lives, but so long as they are willing, I believe the cost is worth it. When you compare that cost to the other things we are deficit spending on, it might be the greatest deal in the history of Fiat currency. What better way to spend made up money? Would I support the same action against China? You betcha. If China wants to try to invade another country, and that country can bleed their military out using our intelligence and weaponry, and the people of that country are willing to fight, it's a no-brainer. Taking two geopolitical adversaries off the board before our economic death spiral starts to seriously impact our ability to project global power would be an incredible advantage going into the fourth turning. I think part of the key difference is that the populist conservative movement (best exemplified by Tucker Carlson) seems to believe that there is an option for some sort of perpetual status quo going forward, if only we don't rock the boat too hard. I disagree emphatically with that belief. History moves in waves, and just like real waves, trying to stop them is pointless, and potentially fatal. Move with them, even try to ride them, and you might end up on top. Might.

That's not true. Very at-risk groups, such as those over 70-80, had a very, very high chance of surviving the vaccine, and a not-great chance of surviving covid. Especially if fat. For them it was a no-brainer. What's mind boggling to me is how effective the current corporatist-governmental establishment has "team-ified" so effectively that Americans are now seemingly incapable of seeing anything that doesn't completely inspire their political opposition. The vaccine, especially for the alpha and Delta variants, absolutely reduced serious illness and death from covid-19. It was also rushed into production, had real and meaningful side effects for certain demographics, was misrepresented by the people and organizations that stood to profit from it most, and treated a disease that was almost certainly developed in a Chinese lab, and accidentally released. Making the vaccine mandatory was immoral because it was new, unproven, and effective in a way that did not benefit from compulsory distribution. Not because it didn't do anything at all.

The vaccine for COVID-19 does not stop transmission. This is not disputed at any level. It reduces it somewhat, but only if you are susceptible to infection in the first place, which teenagers and young adults are not. The concept of herd immunity never involved low-risk demographics increasing their exposure to negative outcomes to protect high-risk demographics. That's an insane proposition.

God bless the algorithm

I get that he killed the dog, but with vice grips? How?

He's never been a textualist, but I don't recall him ever arguing against the Constitution.

Correction: just long enough to get tired of the old reservists and generals telling you how awesome the auger inn used to be before 9/11. "I know I'm literally the commander that is now writing my subordinates LORs and article 15s for irresponsible drinking, but when I was a captain at the auger inn we used to all get wildly drunk, grope strippers at the bar, then drive inebriated while security forces covered for us. Side note, why are all you young guys leaving for the airlines?"

It'll happen during a war time situation. Could be similar to the Japanese internment. Who knows? The demographics of Europe, China, Russia, and Japan are devastating. Unless someone comes up with a miracle solution, it's going to lead to strife in about 20 years. If somehow the Muslim populations find a way to integrate, then it won't be an issue. But if anything the situation has gotten worse in the countries with meaningful percentages of high density Muslim neighborhoods. The problem is that we (as a society) are now realizing that immigrant populations of drastically different cultures do not integrate if they reach a critical mass and are able to create homogenous communities within the host nation. And it doesn't matter how much free electricity or water you give them, it doesn't seem to deradicalize the population. Hamas has everything to lose from what they did, and it'll likelihood the organization will be annihilated. They knew that, and they did it anyways. Americans and the rest of the west have this strange obsession with analyzing jihadist commentary as some sort of code, instead of just taking them at their word. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh: "We love death like our enemies love life! We love Martyrdom, the way in which [Hamas] leaders died." You cannot live in harmony with people who do not value life itself. Eventually you realize, as Israel is now (re)learning, the only thing you can do is give them a death that does not involve your own citizens dying by their hand. Kill them, before they kill themselves slaughtering infidels.

You can't have a functional society where a large segment doesn't believe in the core philosophies. In this case, that all innocent people have a right to live in peace. So yes, eventually they will have to deport them. It won't be this time, but eventually minority groups in all countries (including the Middle East) will have to decide if they are going to assimilate to the host culture, leave, or die.

Maybe the right answers to move everybody from Gaza to the west bank. At least then your problem is centralized in one location. That needs to be some sort of definitive action that stands as a long-term consequence to this attack. Whether that means 100,000 people need to die, or the Palestinians need to be in a materially worse position now than they were before the attack, just going in and surgically killing "terrorists" is not going to do it.

Such as?

At least half of the innocent civilians support Hamas. More than that support the destruction of Israel in exactly the manner that Hamas attempted this week. I don't think sparing the civilian population is as obvious as some are acting. Actively wipe out "innocents?" Probably not. But intentionally wipe out everything they need to survive in Gaza to force their expulsion into the rest of the Arab world? Probably. Ignore the collateral risk if you have a legitimate target to hit? Also probably. This is exactly the type of attack Israel can expect now that it succeeded, if they return to the status quo.

Okay, now this is a bit confusing. You don't consider rights and laws to be synonymous, but now it's also not a moral connection? What exactly is a right? If the animal does not have a right to avoid unnecessary suffering, what makes it immoral? Why they are or aren't is simple, because whatever the ruling legislative body is, decided to make it a law. I assume you meant what should or should not be a law, and in that case I think the general guiding principle is that things that have a negative effect on the society, which results in people uninvolved in the act having a reduced level of human flourishing, are things that we should make illegal. Murder is a pretty obvious one. Driving over the speed limit is less obvious, however the in arguable correlation with accident severity makes for an acceptable argument. Drug use is another great example, and one where the libertarians start crashing into the limitations of their own philosophy, mostly because libertarians have the luxury of not living around drug addicts. Do what you want with your own body starts to fall apart when the drug you are taking causes psychotic outbreaks that end with bystanders being hurt or killed. Punishing the drug user after the fact does little to help the person who was killed her their family. On secondary level, accepting that we have chosen to live in a society that provides services for those who are most in need, allowing people to take a drug that will overwhelmingly put them in a position of need is a threat to the solvency of that system. Thus drug laws. Prostitution is yet another area where those in favor of legalization have seldom had any direct experience with actual prostitution. There are some places like Amsterdam that have done what they can to clean up the industry, yet even they have struggled. And somewhere like America, the world of prostitution is one of the clearest examples of predators taking advantage of prey. Yet again, libertarians operate on assumptions that do not jive with reality. In this case, that all humans are capable of protecting themselves. This is simply not true, and many of the women who "voluntarily" sell their bodies are usually under the predatory influence of a sociopathic male. Again, it's a bit difficult to frame this within the context of rights and morals because you have not yet defined what you consider a right. If anything you just confused me more. Oh, and they are also usually hopelessly addicted to drugs, another inconvenient reality for the legalization movement. This is either moral relativism or you're intentionally dodging the question, which means you aren't at all interested in the philosophical discussion. When someone talks about stealing a car, do you feel it is reasonable to assume they are referring to someone who desperately needed the car for a moral use? If you tell me that you are honestly posing that as a rational response, I will believe you, but I will have to be much more meticulous in explaining arguments that normal people do not usually require clarifications on. As for the war hypothetical, was that also confusing? Did you not understand the concept of killing someone as an act of war in accordance with societally accepted rules of warfare? Again, I just need to know how pedantic you require me to be in order to have this philosophical discussion. Not going to lie, considering this: It really doesn't seem like you are engaging in good faith.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, just say so. You aren't coming off as obvious as you think you are. So... is there a difference between killing a human in a war and killing them to steal their car? Why Is there a moral difference between killing a deer for food, and drowning a cat in a pond because you like the sounds they make as they die? Why?

If left to their own devices, it seems likely that either Israel will eventually be overwhelmed, or they will start annihilating the surrounding Arab states. I don't see how either option is good for the US, and it's certainly more important than Ukraine given the reliance on stable energy markets. Military intervention is probably not the best option, but what do you suggest?

I just we're just arguing semantics at this point. You are not allowed to beat your dog. Depending on how you do it, or the jury at the time, you will go to jail for doing it. If that doesn't mean that your dog has a "Right" then that's fine, but the effect is the same. Both your child and your dog have a right not to be beaten, or at the very least, there is a law preventing you from doing so. They certainly have different rights, but that is because in both instances the line is drawn somewhere between the two absolutes of total and no control, just at different points. It is also illegal in certain states to eat cats and dogs, so those particular animals, both of which you are capable of owning, seem to have "rights" of some sort as well.

Yeah, I kind of agree with lawman on this one, we have certainly unchained our fighting forces to destroy a specific enemy, but that enemy is not a nation. It's a military target It would be fascinating to see how it plays out if we did. Imagine targeting every power production facility in every major city of a developed enemy nation. Or targeting the waste water treatment plants, which there aren't many and they're not hardened. Then just wait to see what a metro area of millions looks like with no functional sewage system. I bet there are tons of horrifying options that are easily targeted.