Third wave feminism is to feminism as New Atheism is to atheism. You know I'm right (I sure ain't wrong).

File: 151 KB, 680x1023, a9deb3bf_PRAYFORD-still-009-x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 03:29:45 2012 No.2557013 [Reply] [Original]

Third wave feminism is to feminism as New Atheism is to atheism.

You know I'm right (I sure ain't wrong).

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 03:33:45 2012 No.2557017 >>2557013 Or you can just be saying nonsense. People always forget about that third option.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 03:34:45 2012 No.2557018 Which writers are included in each of these movements?

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 03:37:44 2012 No.2557020

Well let's see...

New atheism is the same as old atheism, just with a different goal (converting people instead of being accepted).

Third wave feminism is also feminism with a different goal (Exploring what gender is and what it means to be a female instead of seeking equality).

So yeah, you are right, in one sense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 03:50:44 2012 No.2557028 >What it means to be a female >Having a cunt Yes, we should definitely have government-funded programs in our universities to investigate this very important and intriguing concept.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 03:52:44 2012 No.2557029

>>2557020
>Well let's see...

>New atheism is the same as old atheism, just with a different goal (converting people instead of being accepted).

>Third wave feminism is also feminism with a different goal (converting people instead of being accepted).

fixed

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:03:46 2012 No.2557034
File: 2.85 MB, 2376x2592, 1332200056460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

First wave feminism was about women being able to go to school, get good jobs, and live independent lives that didn't conform to the nuclear family's role of wife/mother. Contemporary feminism is about how men hitting on women is tantamount to rape.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:05:44 2012 No.2557036 second wave is more annoying than third wave though. third wave is more like girls embracing porn and stuff and slutwalks, isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:06:44 2012 No.2557038 >>2557034 i dont think first wave was about challenging the role of women as much as having equal statutory rights, first wave died with the enfranchisement of women.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:10:44 2012 No.2557039

>Men in society have no legal say in parenthood - if a woman gets pregnant a man has no equivalent choice to abortion to opt out of parenthood, and if she keeps the child he's financially obligated to it for eighteen years.
>Contemporary feminists claim the fact that women aren't getting their birth control payed for by the state is a war against women.
Why can't I hold all this privilege?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:21:44 2012 No.2557047 >>2557039 Oh come on. The man's 'choice in parenthood' is wearing a condom, or not

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:25:44 2012 No.2557050 >>2557047 >Oh come on. The man's 'choice in parenthood' is wearing a condom, or not The same could be said to be a woman's 'choice in parenthood'.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:37:45 2012 No.2557057 No, you are wrong. New atheism is fine. Old atheism is fine too. First and second wave feminism is fine. Third wave and gender feminism is retarded, almost literally.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:39:44 2012 No.2557058

>>2557018
Google is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/

etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:39:44 2012 No.2557060 >>2557057 >bras are torture >second wave feminism is fine i guess it makes sense that you think new atheism is fine

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:41:44 2012 No.2557061

>>2557034
No. First wave feminism was/is about women's voting rights.

Second wave was/is about getting women on the labor market.

Third wave is about getting more unfair advantages to women, broadening the definition of "rape", inventing insane social constructivist theories of how men repress women etc.

Wave 1-2 were good things, wave 3 is horrible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 04:43:44 2012 No.2557063 >>2557060 If they want to wear bras or not is their business. But since it makes their breasts look bigger and more firm, there will be sexual selection forces at work in the direction of wearing bras.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 05:00:45 2012 No.2557072

>>2557061
>>2557061
It's not about 'broadening' the definition of rape you ignoramus. It's about shifting blame from victims to perpetrators and emphasizing the point of consent.

Not that I agree with all the principles of third-wave feminism, but I think that one's pretty solid

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 05:18:44 2012 No.2557090 >>2557060 >Bra is torture >the first bra was crafted by an awesome woman

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 05:34:45 2012 No.2557103 File: 10 KB, 220x165, ralph_wiggum_in_thought.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2557057 >New atheism >fine

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 06:34:45 2012 No.2557139 >>2557103 but it's fine because religion is the devil and the world must be purged of theists

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 07:31:44 2012 No.2557166 >LOL THEY'RE JUST PATHETIC FEMINAZIS >IF WE RELY ON GODWINS LAW WE CAN DISMISS EVERYTHING THEY SAY

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 07:37:13 2012 No.2557168

new atheism is ugly of course, but it's necessary. the situation hasn't been worse since the middle ages with creationism being taught in public schools and muslim fanatics ruling the mideast and big parts of africa. we'd need a second enlightenment right now :(

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 08:01:09 2012 No.2557188

>>2557168
Indeed. However, radicalism in all forms has a counterproductive tendency. This thread points to the obvious backlash against things like religious denial or women's equality and it's not just simultaneous to change but it can often be caused by it. Excessive liberalism all too often spurs a conservative retreat. It could be defensive of values that served us well but it could also be a reactionary panicked and easy solution to scary and unpredictable change. It might even have something to do with the 'hipster vs mainstream' war that rages in us and is often expressed on the internet. Regardless of how it happens or whether it is noble, if you want to instigate change it'd be wise to remember that an incremental and sympathetic strategy may ward off that backlash--slow and steady wins the race! It may be difficult especially in discussions where each side is the antithesis of the other (there is no reconciling denial and affirmation of God). But jumping into polemical diatribes or trying to put everything you want say across in record time isn't even trying and thwarts your argument, more so when combined with a lack of or reluctance to understand your opponent. The New Atheists would do well to contend with a typical or moderate consensus on Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 08:19:49 2012 No.2557213 New atheism makes me ashamed to be an atheist. militant atheists are the reason i refuse to publicly identify as an atheist.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 08:31:44 2012 No.2557231

>>2557188
>The New Atheists would do well to contend with a typical or moderate consensus on Christianity.
True. But they cannot do that because their ideology expressly rejects this option. For them, all religion is equally irrationality incarnate (because they all believe in God), all religion is as dangerous as it is irrational, and all religion must therefore be destroyed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 10:36:45 2012 No.2557368 >>2557213 Vilkommen to me and my relationship with feminism. Here's your complementary glass of bitters and your dry bread.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 10:45:45 2012 No.2557374

>>2557072
>It's not about 'broadening' the definition of rape you ignoramus. It's about shifting blame from victims to perpetrators and emphasizing the point of consent.

Yes, it is, you 'ignoramus'. They have even invented terms like "mini rape", see e.g.:

"MS. PAGLIA: Well, one of the things that got me pilloried from coast to coast was when I wrote a piece on date rape for Newsday in January of 1991. It got picked up by the wire services, and the torrent of abuse that poured in. I want women to fend for themselves. That essay that I wrote on rape begins with the line "Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in civilized society." I absolutely abhor this broadening of the idea of rape, which is an atrocity, to those things that go wrong on a date --acquaintances, you know, little things, miscommunications -- on pampered elite college campuses. MS. SOMMERS: I interviewed a young women at the University of Pennsylvania who came in in a short skirt and she was in the Women's Center, and I think she thought I was one of the sisterhood. And she said, "Oh, I just suffered a mini-rape." And I said, "What happened?" And she said, "A boy walked by me and said, `Nice legs'." You know? And that -- and this young woman considers this a form of rape! "

http://www.menweb.org/paglsomm.htm

-

See also the recent issue with Julian Assange and the Swedish definition of "rape" which makes it possible for both persons engaging in consensual sex and both be raping each other at the same time. I am at loss of words to describe such mind-bogging stupidity.

-

>It's about shifting blame from victims to perpetrators and emphasizing the point of consent.

This is pointless as that is already the case. There is no 'shifting' needed. Laws are as they should be.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 10:48:45 2012 No.2557380 I never saw any complaints about new atheism before I came to /lit/. I still haven't seen any reasons, only straw men like >>2557139 and non-arguments such as >>2557103

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 10:50:44 2012 No.2557384 >>2557231 This is another straw man. None of the new atheists have written anything like that. What they typically argue is that moderate religion leads to more extreme religion. And moderate religion is also damaging to society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 10:51:45 2012 No.2557385 >>2557384 Before you misinterpret me. I meant 'the four horsemen' or other prominent new atheism writers, not just some random guy on a forum.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 11:45:45 2012 No.2557448

>>2557380

Here's an argument that is not a strawman. Religion is necessary. Imagine the human brain as roller-coaster at an amusement park. Religion is basically a sign which reads, YOU MUST BE AT LEAST THIS SMART TO RIDE. New Atheism thinks kicking over this sign is a good idea. I do not because I recognize the fact that there will always be stupid people and I want mimetic devices to implant relatively benign ideologies in the minds of those stupid people.

Even if New Atheism somehow manages eliminate religion, stupid people will come up with a new irrational ideology to replace it and bereft of the centuries of natural selection which has molded religion, it is likely to be far more dangerous. This is how we got theosophism, after all, the pseudoreligion upon which the beliefs of the Third Reich were built.

inb4 Godwin's Rule

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 11:46:45 2012 No.2557452

>>2557374
>See also the recent issue with Julian Assange and the Swedish definition of "rape" which makes it possible for both persons engaging in consensual sex and both be raping each other at the same time. I am at loss of words to describe such mind-bogging stupidity.

i don't...
i don't believe you. show me.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 12:47:44 2012 No.2557510

>>2557168
>but it's necessary

uh no it isn't.

>the situation hasn't been worse since the middle ages with creationism being taught in public schools
and the atheists want to shove niggers into all schools so no learning can be done, teach sex ed at age 6, teach pro-faggotry propaganda, etc etc etc.

>>2557452
>if she's drunk
>it was rape

>if she was "economically coerced"
>it was rape

etc etc etc

>>2557448
>the pseudoreligion upon which the beliefs of the Third Reich were built.
Nazi's were catholics u faggot.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 12:50:45 2012 No.2557516

>>2557448
What a strange analogy.

New atheism is generally more about being reasonable than eradicating religion in itself. Hence their 'Brights' campaigns, Dawkins' documentaries on alternative 'medicine', etc.

I still don't understand why people dislike new atheism. You didn't explain why, or even why you did, but only claimed that religion is necessary (for what?) and that to keep it around is a good idea because otherwise the 'whole' would be filled with something worse.

I don't believe these things for a second.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 12:58:44 2012 No.2557522

>>2557452
A quick Google gave me this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652

Basically, it is (allegedly, some matter of interpretation) illegal to be dishonest about whether one is using contraception or not, and that this is the 3rd category of "rape". This is obviously not what "rape" normally means.

Here is how it can be double rape. The woman says that she is on the pill (but isn't), and the man says that he is wearing a condom (but he deliberately sabotaged it so that it doesn't work). In fact, it is this later claim that one of the woman is making against him.

Absurd? Absolutely. Only a country infested with crazy third wave feminism could have such moronic laws. Sweden (and Norway) are such countries.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 13:12:44 2012 No.2557538 >>2557522 Only a shitty country like norway would put a hero like Breivik in prison.

Anonymous Thu Apr 12 13:21:45 2012 No.2557552
File: 285 KB, 720x720, 1285018208143.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2557384
>>2557385
>None of the new atheists have written anything like that.

ORLY?

Seriously, have you read the books? For now I´ll stick with Dawkins: he claims that
a) all religion - moderate, fundamentalist - teaches that blind, unquestioning faith is a virtue. This he derives from the fact that both moderate and fundamentalist religion believes in God.
b) therefore all religion is equally irrational and therefore must be fought. This is their actual argument against moderate religion, in case you haven´t noticed.
c) religion must be destroyed. This claim is not made directly, but if you add his belief that people are religious only because they have been indoctrinated in childhood to the belief that raising your children religiously is child abuse, you get the result that religious childrearing must be outlawed and criminalized, and religion will thus be destroyed. For Dawkins there is nothing good or valuable about religion, certainly nothing that couldn´t be had without it - and a plethora of evils it supposedly causes and for which it merits demise.

Pretty much the same can be found in Hitchens and of course Harris, that zealous retard. Not so sure about Dennett, but I wouldn´t expect a significantly more sensible approach, given his public association with the other three.

Your call.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 13:26:44 2012 No.2557557 A particularly obnoxious way of expressing a stupid belief? I suppose so.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 12 13:35:46 2012 No.2557569 >>2557538 >>>/int/ >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 00:03:47 2012 No.2559032 bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 00:12:45 2012 No.2559045 File: 69 KB, 475x336, militant atheist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Oh no, the atheists are oppressing us! Why can't we go back to the good old days when we could burn them at the stake?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 00:15:46 2012 No.2559049 3rd wave feminism is part of the far left, while leftists hate New Atheism.

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 00:15:46 2012 No.2559052 File: 555 KB, 745x448, Ashley-Judd-Full.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Implying true feminism has come about. >Implying there's a new way to not believe in a god.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 00:25:46 2012 No.2559074 File: 310 KB, 475x336, Militantism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2559045 Please kill yourself. Or at least get off of /lit/ until you are over 14

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 00:26:46 2012 No.2559075 >>2559052 damn thats some fucking on-point analysis from ashley judd honestly i'm kind of shocked

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 00:37:45 2012 No.2559090 >>2557231 You truly are an idiot.

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 00:48:46 2012 No.2559109
File: 152 KB, 760x760, 1333573335798.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2559074
There's nothing murderous inherent in the absence of belief in supernatural beings. Once society grows out of its adolescence, we have a better chance at ending the suffering.
Not all suffering is caused by the childish bickerings of religious fundamentalists, granted, but a far FAR larger amount can be assigned to them than atheists. Who, after all, know there is no other chance of life after death.

May we grow up fast. Before its too late.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 01:01:45 2012 No.2559134 >>2559075 she looks like some sort of professional leftist. and that quote is pure stupidity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 01:04:45 2012 No.2559140 >>2559052 what the fuck happened to ashley judd? looks like a totally different person.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 01:05:46 2012 No.2559143 >>2559109 that's a little naive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 01:08:45 2012 No.2559150 >>2559109 Wait, us atheist don't KNOW for certain that there is no life after this one. We just consider it incredibly unlikely. Nobody knows, believers or non-believers alike.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 01:12:45 2012 No.2559158

>>2559052
Yawn. See >>2557039.

The funny thing is feminists themselves are the quickest to marginalize male issues like circumcision by claiming that discussing them detracts from women's issues ("What about teh menz?"), and then they claim that men discussing female issues is itself an act of objectification? Please. These people are so blinded by their own goddamn privilege that they can't seem to stop projecting onto everyone else.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 01:12:45 2012 No.2559159 >>2557013 In the sense that they are both shitty corruptions of reasonable ideologies, sure.

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 02:21:46 2012 No.2559273 >>2559150 Oh, well feel free to kill whoever you want. Could be sending them to paradise after all. >>2559143 No. >>2559158 Wholly beside the point(s) Don't rope me into your minutiae. >>2559134 >>2559140 I guess a lot of reading makes you puffy.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 02:33:46 2012 No.2559280

>>2559273
>Wholly beside the point(s) Don't rope me into your minutiae.
How the fuck is it beside the point? Feminists act as if women being discussed by men is an affront against them (despite discussion about women's issues by men having done a great deal to advance their rights over the past 100 years), and simultaneously work to trivialize discussions about men, and have been successful insofar as men's issues barely move forward at all. Hell, you're doing it right now.

The disgusting thing about third wave feminism is how it claims to oppose gender roles, yet seems eager to invoke chivalry and men bending over backwards to accommodate women's concerns at the drop of a hat. I mean, Jesus Christ, if men were ignoring women's issues it would just be us exercising our supposed male privilege to be unaware of how privileged we are, but discussing them itself is objectification now? Fuck you, and fuck your victim complex.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 02:39:45 2012 No.2559287 >>2559273 >No. okay, but don't hold your breath waiting for society to "grow up".

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 02:54:46 2012 No.2559311 File: 20 KB, 295x421, A Vindication of the Rights of Women.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2559280 sigh I have a book for you. >>2559287 Its growing everyday :)

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 03:00:45 2012 No.2559322

>>2559311
>*sigh* I have a book for you.
Your response is so asinine and fallacious that I regret even responding to it, but I *never* said I had a problem with women's rights or gender egalitarianism in general.

You know, it's funny how many feminists will claim that radical feminists like Dworkin don't speak for everyone and that feminism is a diverse group with many different points of view, but apparently any criticism by men of any branch of feminism in a condemnation of the entire movement and its history. Now, feel free to respond with another dismissive one-liner that completely fails to address anything I've said and I'll know you're a troll instead of just an idiot.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 03:01:46 2012 No.2559324

>>2559311
Nothing accounts for a seemingly chemically imbalanced thought pattern on the part of women and their reliance on gender roles to give them a sense of security when men's gender roles have been eroded by way of supposed equality, to the extent that it's likely that their life expectancy will continue to fall.

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 03:10:45 2012 No.2559334 >>2559322 Awww. So sensitive >>2559324 Ah. Its a chemical now

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 03:15:45 2012 No.2559341 >>2559334 >Awww. So sensitive That's what I get for presuming you're a rational human being.

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 03:28:46 2012 No.2559358

>>2559341

You know virtually all of my posts are troll posts, right? I'm not actually stupid enough to believe any of the bullshit I type; I'm a well-adjusted social conservative and a practicing Latvian Orthodox Christian (Happy Easter!) Just keep scrolling whenever you see one of my posts. Buttsex.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 03:31:45 2012 No.2559361

>>2559358

people like you are the people who are making me hate social justice

fucking happy smiling white people with all the money and friends and shit in the world, risking fucking nothing and claiming something motherfuckers have literally died for as a goddamn NY fashion statement posture

i hate you.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 03:33:45 2012 No.2559362

>>2559358
You know all my posts were troll posts, right? I didn't really disagree with anything you were writing, I'm really a anarchist socialist feminist, and I recognize that heterosexual women in first world countries are truly some of the most oppressed people on earth.

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 03:35:45 2012 No.2559363
File: 212 KB, 806x900, John+Wright2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2559341
My post was a response to the OPs obvious troll. My written part states that true feminism isn't here. For what you're judging we might as well be in the 16th century.
The picture was, of course, a quote from Ashley Judd, this last Monday. Its seems some rag sheets where a little less than concerned for her appearance. They were more aghast that she would actually be smiling while being seen with such a face. I honestly have no idea why you would side with the rag sheets, but maybe its me you hate so much for this moniker I keep.

I am tired now, so blah.

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 03:37:46 2012 No.2559364 >>2559361 That wasn't me. >>2559362 >>2559358 >Same fag

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 03:38:46 2012 No.2559365 >>2559361 >fucking happy smiling white people I'm a full-blooded Aleut.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 03:39:45 2012 No.2559366 >>2559365 pics or you're full of shit

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 03:39:45 2012 No.2559367 >>2559364 Quit using my moniker.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 03:39:45 2012 No.2559368 >>2559363 Women are more interested in media and makeup than men. You victimize yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 03:40:45 2012 No.2559369 >>2559363 You're like a walking strawman fallacy.

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 03:42:46 2012 No.2559372 File: 34 KB, 300x375, me.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2559366

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 03:49:46 2012 No.2559380
File: 212 KB, 1354x900, John+Wright5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2559368
When did I claim otherwise?

In general, when people (mostly women) stop judging women on their looks, and people stop judging men on what they do and how much they make... well, we can talk to each other better then for one thing... Like I said, I'm tired now.

>>2559367
Why don't you troll yourself now Mr Indian.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 04:01:46 2012 No.2559396 >>2557103 What do you feel is wrong with it? After thousands of years of persecution, the non-religious have begun to assert themselves. I hope this begins to happen with secular peoples suffering under Islamofascist rule.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 04:04:46 2012 No.2559399 File: 33 KB, 324x278, 1292431470226.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2557213 >militant atheists are the reason i refuse to publicly identify as an atheist. LOL, enjoy your closet.

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 04:06:46 2012 No.2559405 I like these ovaries so much I'm going to start using them to mark my posts because I get confused about which posts are indeed mine.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 04:08:46 2012 No.2559406 >>2557510 >and the atheists want to shove niggers into all schools Do you in fact believe that we're living in the 1950's American South?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 04:17:46 2012 No.2559419 File: 46 KB, 776x602, Waynes-World-Get-A-Load-Of-This-Guy-Cam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2559396 >Islamofascist

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Fri Apr 13 04:17:46 2012 No.2559421 Haven't you heard? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ is the new anon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 04:20:45 2012 No.2559428 >>2559419 lel. I of course refer to the militants who rely on theocratic principles to oppress their own peoples, and not moderate and liberal Muslims.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 04:40:45 2012 No.2559449 >>2559428 I would suggest finding a better word. It has a connotation of Fox News Brand Conservatism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 04:43:46 2012 No.2559454 >>2559449 You're probably right. I like Hitchens's defense of the word, though: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/10/defending_islamofascism.html

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 04:51:45 2012 No.2559464

>>2559428

I know, it's just an absurd, propagandistic term that encourages generalization and demonization of a fairly diverse range of political ideologies.

>>2559454

Silly and mostly incorrect. Hitchens' writings on Middle Eastern affairs make me cringe... they're servile to imperialism and I don't think he knew very much about the region at all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 13:59:45 2012 No.2560152 >>2559464 >imperialism is bad :((((( >Mass immigration is great :))))

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:02:45 2012 No.2560162 >>2560152 I'm new to this thread. I just say this comment and thought I'd throw in a penny. Open borders is how it should be. If this results in mass immigration we should look at where these people are coming from and why.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:06:45 2012 No.2560173 >>2560162 sure sure, where do you live, do you have an open borders policy on your home too? btw you are a fucking retard.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:12:45 2012 No.2560191

>>2560173
I do have an open borders policy on my home. Obviously I screen people before they come in to make sure they're not going to fuck shit up.

btw you are an abusive cur, either unable or unwilling to engage in debate and therefore your opinions are worthless.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:13:46 2012 No.2560194 >>2560191 >Obviously I screen people before they come in to make sure they're not going to fuck shit up. That's called not having an open borders policy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:15:46 2012 No.2560200 File: 34 KB, 299x288, jimmies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2560152 >Mass immigration is great :)))) Where'd I say that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:18:45 2012 No.2560207 >>2560194 Not really. The EU has an open borders policy but if somebody has a gun in their bag then they're not going anywhere.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:22:45 2012 No.2560221 >>2560207 EU is open borders to other europoors. Didn't france close their borders recently due to all the shitskins flooding in?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:23:45 2012 No.2560225 >>2560221 Really? If so that's pretty cool. At any rate it'd be rather silly to say we should have open borders policy as it undermines the modern principles behind a nation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:24:45 2012 No.2560227 >>2560162 >Open borders is how it should be. In a true free market society, sure. In a welfare state, absofuckinglutely not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:24:46 2012 No.2560229 >>2560225 So does immigration, but that doesn't stop traitors from pushing it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:26:45 2012 No.2560233 >>2560225 >it undermines the modern principles behind a nation. Yes, that's the point. We should be looking at making the world better, not dividing it up and playing bits off of other bits.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:27:45 2012 No.2560235 >>2560221 Go back to /b/ you fuckwit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:28:45 2012 No.2560237 >>2560233 You're saying we should be attempting to make the whole world great like it's totally accepted.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:29:45 2012 No.2560238 >>2560233 lol, I hate having to work, please give me money, my paypal is above, this will make the world a better place :)

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:30:45 2012 No.2560241 >>2560233 >Hey, let's tax indigenous citizens and spread their wealth around the world!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:31:45 2012 No.2560243 >>2560238 What? That's what we smart people call a non-sequitur.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:31:45 2012 No.2560245 >>2560237 That's right.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:32:45 2012 No.2560246 >>2560243 So, rather then being content with just the third world being a shithole, you want to make our countries a shithole too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:33:46 2012 No.2560249 >>2560241 >>2560238 Are you the samefag?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:33:46 2012 No.2560251 I don't know much about politics, but I know about art and culture. It's good to have diversity in art and culture. This is best achieved with different nations for each people to live together in their cultures. Open borders ruins this.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:34:46 2012 No.2560252

>>2560245
You have absolutely no intellectual contributions towards making the world better though. Simply LOL WESTERNERS ARE RICH AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE POOR, WESTERNERS NEED TO GIVE SHIT TO POOR PEOPLE LOL as if wealth were a zero sum game. Basically, you want to destroy the standard of living of the few countries that have decent ones for everyone living there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:34:46 2012 No.2560253 >>2560246 Er... no. Please fill me in on how you have come to that conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:35:45 2012 No.2560256 >>2560249 >Only one person in the world can disagree with me! Please get murdered.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:35:45 2012 No.2560257 >>2560253 As they say, demographics is destiny. The third world is shit because they are genetically inferior. If they could, they would all flood here, destroying and stealing everything we have built.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:36:45 2012 No.2560260

>>2560251
No it doesn't. As long as people are geographically seperated they will always have different cultures. If you're so concerned about homogenisation of culture then why aren't you protesting against the internet? That's the biggest cultural homogeniser that has ever existed.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:37:45 2012 No.2560265

>>2560253

I don't know what's going on but if you want people to stop saying "non-sequiturs" you should actually voice your argument in detail instead of just saying "er what are you saying I don't understand?" to every response and waiting for someone to say an argument you can fight instead of just making a solid one of your own.

God damn /lit/ you're horrible at debates.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:38:45 2012 No.2560268 >>2560256 Disagree with me in exactly the same bizarre way. Please learn to talk to people instead of wishing they were dead. I know this is 4chan but /lit/ is meant to host a slightly higher level of discussion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:38:45 2012 No.2560269 >>2560260 >As long as people are geographically seperated they will always have different cultures. B-b-but... that's what open borders destroys...

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:39:46 2012 No.2560272 >>2560252 I didn't even mention wealth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:40:45 2012 No.2560275 >>2560260 Thanks for restating my argument for me and then assuming things about me.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:40:45 2012 No.2560276

>>2560268
Sorry you're such a pathetic little stain that you couldn't respond to my argument and instead responded to my abuse. I'm talking to you and wishing you were dead at the same time, the two are not contradictory. Now respond to my argument or please get raped to death.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:40:46 2012 No.2560273 >>2560269 I believe he is advocating segregation within a country.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:41:45 2012 No.2560277 >>2560269 Huh? Geographically seperated means physically seperated, i.e. I'm over here and you're over there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:43:46 2012 No.2560280 >>2560277 Stop saying those condescending "huhs?" and "whats?" and whatever else. Holy shit are you 14? Open borders = people crossing into new geographic areas = the opposite of geographic isolation of a culture.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:43:46 2012 No.2560281 >>2560272 Advocating that welfare states have open borders is advocation of wealth redistribution, plain and simple.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:45:45 2012 No.2560291 >>2560276 What argument? Please restate it because I obviously missed it. All I saw was an apparently random comment that sounds like it was taken off the cutting room floor of Glenn Beck's jizz-soaked office.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:48:45 2012 No.2560299

>>2560281
No it isn't. You have to be a tax-eligible citizen of a country in order to claim welfare. Secondly, welfare has restrictions, e.g. if you want to claim Jobseekers allowance in Britain you have to be looking for a job. I know it doesn't work brilliantly but that's the idea.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:50:45 2012 No.2560304 >>2560257 That's a cheeky comment, not a serious one?

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:50:45 2012 No.2560306

>>2560291
>First world nations require a college education for most jobs that pay decently.
>First world nations have welfare states
>Allow open immigration to everyone, regardless of their skill
>Suddenly, a mass of people who are living on welfare and who couldn't get a good paying job if they wanted as they don't have the skills to get them and don't even speak the native language.
See how this works?

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:51:45 2012 No.2560309

>>2560299
>You have to be a tax-eligible citizen of a country in order to claim welfare.
No you don't, fucking idiot.

>you have to be looking for a job

Ya you check a box saying "i'm currently looking for a job"
Or in some europoor country, to get unemployment you have to literally prostitute yourself because prostitution is a-ok in euroland.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:52:45 2012 No.2560311 >>2560275 I didn't restate your argument, I refuted it, and I didn't assume anything about you.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:54:45 2012 No.2560315

>>2560309
Yes you do. Somebody in China can't claim welfare in America. Open borders does not mean global redistribution of wealth. Although it does mean that rich or industrious countries would benefit from getting together and improving poor ones. And that's a fucking good thing.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:56:45 2012 No.2560320

>>2560315
>Somebody in China can't claim welfare in America.
Yes, and your proposed open border policy would instantly destroy this, as welfare in a first world nation would suddenly be a boat ride away for every poor person on earth.

Are you actually retarded?

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:57:45 2012 No.2560321

>>2560304
Think about it this way

>have open borders
>be a democracy

China then deports 350 million people to america, 50 million to canada, china now OWNS both these countries.
Open borders... such a grand idea, huh?

>>2560315
You may "LEGALLY" be required to be a citizen, but in REALITY the poeple in charge of welfare ofices are shitskins or nigger lovers like yourself who look the other way.

Look at obongos aunt who had been living on welfare for years. Look at all the illegals who cost cali like 100 billion a year.

Not to mention if they show up at a hospital they are REQUIRED to be treated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:58:45 2012 No.2560324 >>2560304 Also: How is it a cheeky comment? You agree with me that the non-whites are inferior and can't do anything for themselves. Because you think YOU/WE need to coddle them and help them.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 14:59:45 2012 No.2560326

>>2560306
No I don't see how that works.
If somebody immigrates into this country they will go through our education system and contribute just as much to society as any of us. Leave them in their own shitty country where they have no hope of education and they will be stuck in a cycle that they will never be able to get out of. Or alternatively we can help them build a decent education system in their country and they won't need to leave.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:00:45 2012 No.2560328 >>2560324 No I don't agree that non-whites are inferior. I suppose we're at an impasse.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:01:45 2012 No.2560332 >>2560328 They why can't they build a country for themselves? This "cycle of poverty" you are talking about doesn't exist.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:02:45 2012 No.2560337

>>2560280
I'm saying huh? because I don't understand how you can be so stupid. Unless the entire world can fit into one room we are always going to be geographically seperated and always have different cultures. Open borders doesn't mean that everybody is everywhere all the time. Your brain is silly.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:04:45 2012 No.2560339

>>2560326
>If somebody immigrates into this country they will go through our education system and contribute just as much to society as any of us.
Most people coming to first world countries wouldn't even be literate in their native language, you fuckwit. Even supposing this pathetic axiom had any basis in reality, the financial strain on our education system of all these people getting an education at once would bankrupt every first world nation on earth instantly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:05:45 2012 No.2560343 >>2560332 You don't think there is such thing as a cycle of poverty? I know wikipedia isn't an academic source but I just chencked it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty and it at no point mentions any doubt over whether it exists or not.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:09:46 2012 No.2560355

>>2560320
If a poor person took a boat to America and became an American citizen then would have a right to welfare. Just as all the poor people already living in America have a right to welfare. But the welfare state is about improving people's ability to look after themselves not just nurse them while they sit around doing nothing until they die. If that's what's going on then your vehemence should be directed against the malfunctioning of the welfare state, not against immigration.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:11:45 2012 No.2560360 >>2560355 >If that's what's going on then your vehemence should be directed against the malfunctioning of the welfare state, not against immigration. I addressed this already. See >>2560227

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:11:45 2012 No.2560363

>>2560321
That wouldn't mean China owns those countries. It would mean that that country has a lot of Chinese citizens. So what? That's no different from when a lot of European people moved to America. Except in this day and age I don't think the Chinese people would actively seek to wipe the Americans off the face of the planet.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:12:45 2012 No.2560364

>>2560339
>the financial strain on our education system of all these people getting an education at once

to truely measure costs you have to compare alternatives.

>alternative to free public edu: street urchins, gangsters
sounds good to me! fewer schools, more jails!

why so stormfag?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:13:45 2012 No.2560369 >>2560326 >Or alternatively we can help them build a decent education system in their country and they won't need to leave. White Man's Guilt, satisfied now with just one easy payment of $1 a month to a charity on your screen!

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:14:45 2012 No.2560373

>>2560339
Then it becomes your responsibility to help the poor nations get a decent education system so that they stop coming into your country. Open borders means the world would be united in improving everybody's condition instead of focussing on their own. The world would be a better place and we would all eat chocolate eggs as we dance through double rainbows.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:15:46 2012 No.2560375 I never understood something. Feminists oppose men talking about women in a vulgar way (i.e. I'm gonna fuck her so hard), etc. They say men are objectifying them. Alright, I agree, but regardless. How come they then go on slut-walks and whatever?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:16:46 2012 No.2560382 >>2560321 OMG people turning up at hospitals and being required to be treated. Terrible. You're right. We should round up all the shitskins and gas them.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:17:45 2012 No.2560383

>>2560364
I know you're just trolling at this point, but I have to say that in 50 years the west is going to wonder what happened to its former glory as it lives in third world squalor. The reason is there really are masses of people here who think almost exactly in the way you're pretending to right now, and Asia the same intellectual force we do without entitled, "compassionate" retards, which is why they're going to dominate.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:19:45 2012 No.2560392

>>2560360
Then why are you arguing so strongly against immigration per se rather than arguing for a restructuring of the welfare state with more emphasis on getting people back to work, such as the one they have in Germany.
Sorry if I'm mixing you up with other people, I think I'm single-handedly weathering a shitstorm here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:20:46 2012 No.2560395 >>2560369 Not charity. And nothing to do with skin colour. We're talking about nations here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:22:46 2012 No.2560401 >>2560392 Because you're advocating open borders for everyone, regardless of economic policy.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:24:45 2012 No.2560406

>>2560383
The west was most glorious when Britain was building schools and industry all over the world. Living in imperialistic leisure at the cost of the indigenous people whom we occasionally had to supress, of course, but we deserved that leisure, it was our fee for being so awesome.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:25:46 2012 No.2560410

>>2560382
sure sure because money is infinite right?

>>2560395
"nations' are ethnicities and races, the third world is the third world because they are non-white.

>>2560363
>Except in this day and age I don't think the Chinese people would actively seek to wipe the Americans off the face of the planet.
Why would they? if they were the majority they would own the country, it would be a chinese country with a chinese government.

>>2560373
How is it our responsibility you utter retard?
How do you think "EDUCATION" magically fixes everything? Have you missed the experiments in the USA? Spend 50k a year per student, doesn't change ANYTHING because niggers are still dumb criminals.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:25:46 2012 No.2560412 >>2560375 >How come they then go on slut-walks They are challenging being labelled as an out group. Its the same with gay-pride marches and neo-nazi rallies. you just stand up and say "fuck your opinion, im cool" what confused you?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:25:46 2012 No.2560413 >>2560401 Weeeeeeeell no not exactly. I'm saying an ideal world would have open borders. For that to work everything else would need restructuring.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:26:46 2012 No.2560417 >>2560406 Funny. What you're proposing now is imperialism of failed states upon successful one.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:28:45 2012 No.2560429

>>2560413
How is open borders ideal?

What do you think would happen to your neighborhood with a bunch of niggers and gypsies move in?

You do realize that the third world isn't waiting for kindly white people to come by and give them a helping hand? They aren't going to thank you for pandering to them and trying to tell them what to do.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:31:45 2012 No.2560440

>>2560410
>money is infinite right?
Er, yes. It's made up.

>nations are ethnicities and races
No they are not. There may be a strong correlation between ethnicity and race but they are completely seperate sets.
>it would be a chinese country with a chinese government
No, that would require a war and a complete restructuring of absolutely everything.
>niggers are still dumb criminals.
I can't believe I'm engaging in debate with a full-blown /b/tard

Everything you think is logically incoherent and unfounded. I am done with you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:32:45 2012 No.2560445 >>2560429 >implying poors arent priced right out of the game >waah, niggers want my shit cool victimology bro.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:33:46 2012 No.2560448 >>2560440 >Er, yes. It's made up. Resources, though, aren't, which you're aware money represents but chose to pretend it doesn't for an immediate rhetorical victory. You deserve to have your head smashed to pieces.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:34:46 2012 No.2560450

>>2560429
Open borders is ideal because, like I said, it means we are focussing on making the world better instead of splitting it up and playing one geographical region off against another. Just because somebody was born in another country it doesn't make them shit. We should be discriminating against dickheads and morons not against people with a different passport.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:36:45 2012 No.2560456 >>2560448 Money does not represent resources. It represents a lot of things. And some of those things are infinite or nigh on infinite. Therefore money is infinite.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:37:45 2012 No.2560459 >>2560412 That they are praising the same thing they attack, in different contexts?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:37:45 2012 No.2560461 >>2560450 sure sure, we shouldn't discriminate against murderers and rapists too, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:37:45 2012 No.2560462 >Money does not represent resources. Bullshit. What does it represent then?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:38:45 2012 No.2560463 File: 53 KB, 510x370, george-costanza..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2560456 >Money does not represent resources. This may just be the dumbest thing I've ever read on 4chan. Congratulations.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:38:45 2012 No.2560464

>>2560450
yea dude, youre right.

heres the problem.

you are an absolutist.
you measure your well being in abolute terms
(good my needs met, many wants, doing good)

most people, and all conservatives
are relativist. they only want better-than-some
(look at those criming blacks, doing better than them)

relativists like racists are repulsed by your idea
because it improves everyones lives.
they measure their gains in terms of others losses.
know you know how racism works(it doesnt)!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:40:47 2012 No.2560470 >>2560462 it represents value in relative terms. otherwise its value couldnt change over time. money doesnt have "intrinsic" value. the paper isnt made with rare fairy dust.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:42:45 2012 No.2560476 >>2560461 No. You should discriminate against them.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:45:47 2012 No.2560479

>>2560464

There are more complex issues at work than just your naive one-world economy bullshit. It's accepted that people from different geographic locations have different cultures. Some of those cultures are not compatible with others. Some might even argue that some cultures are inferior to others for various reasons. Why should we allow people to enter our nation and dilute our culture with their incompatible and arguably inferior culture?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:46:47 2012 No.2560484 >it represents value in relative terms. Relative value of what exactly?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:47:45 2012 No.2560488 >>2560463 >>2560462 you are told what money is worth. you are told what everything is worth. worth and value are group-based myths. what good is money to a man on a deserted island?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:49:46 2012 No.2560493 >>2560488 Yes, thanks for presuming something that every economics 101 student knows is a profound thought.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:51:45 2012 No.2560499

>>2560479
This is the first time in this thread anyone has made me think twice about what I was saying. Because there is a grain of truth in what you're saying unlike all the bullshit I've been batting away for the last half hour (fuck! I could have finished the book I'm reading in that time). But the way I see it, in this ideal world there would actually be very little economic immigration. It would all be cultural, so people form 'shitty' cultures would stay put and people who wanted to be part of our awesome culture would come join in.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:55:45 2012 No.2560508

>>2560493
where do i imply profundity?

i just never get people that get worked
up about the gold standard

>money is worthless
so is gold
>nuh uh, its real and physical
so is your bill
>(puzzled looks)

you can buy bills from defunct nations
if those bills ever had magic power
they still have them now, yet no want.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 15:59:47 2012 No.2560525 >>2557013 I'd say most 'third wave' or 'third generation' human rights are so vastly baseless compared to their predecessors that it renders discussing human rights in general nonconstructive

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:00:47 2012 No.2560528

>Some of those cultures are not compatible with others.
what are the metrics for "compatible"?
what are its symptoms?

>Some might even argue that some cultures are inferior to others
there already are people that do that
we shouldnt pay them heed

they are obstructionists interfering with
commerce and individual will.
they would use the state to police commerce
and free association. liberal values.

this argument reduces to
>we shouldnt allow mixed culture, that pisses off racists
there are racists of every culture.
what have they ever produced, other than discord?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:02:46 2012 No.2560536 >>2560508 OMG SOCIAL CONSTRUCT! is not an argument, because everyone recognizes it already. If you want to go back to the barter system, you're free to try it, even if it's complete shit it's still "real", but the rest of civilization has moved on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:02:46 2012 No.2560537 >>2560525 which rights are those? care to enumerate the rights that fall short of your bar? can you convinve me that this isnt just "fuck em, ive got mine"? (not intending to imply, offering a frame to contrast your thought to)

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:02:46 2012 No.2560538

>>2560528
Hypothetically, 1 culture reveres life, and another culture promotes duelings. These would be incompatible.

>what have they ever produced, other than discord?
ah ya this fantasy that if only we got rid of bigots and racists, magically everyone could live together fine.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:09:46 2012 No.2560563

>>2560528
I really should get back to work

>what are the metrics for "compatible"?, etc

For instance, one outlaws murder entirely. There is no justification. Another culture condones murder if the victim has done something considered heretical. They are incompatible.

>blah blah blah liberal values.

Straw man. this isn't about politics.

>this argument reduces to we shouldnt allow mixed culture, that pisses off racists

No it doesnt. Your ignoring the fact that certain cultures can not coexist peacefully in the same geographic location without one culture trying to eradicate the other.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:14:46 2012 No.2560571

>>2560538

>1 culture reveres life, and another culture promotes duelings.
this is vague language.
who says of their culture "we love us some duelings"?
strawman.

i was asking what are the "warning signs"
that races are mixing at unacceptable
levels?

>ah ya this fantasy that if only we got rid of bigots and racists, magically everyone could live together fine.
i was trying to imply any such shit.
i operate in a completely explicit fashion.
have you seen me do otherwise?

when i give you a fantasy i will precede it with "imagine".
i dont leave the task of communicating my intention to idiots.

i was asking for a list of the acheivements of known racists.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:14:46 2012 No.2560576

>>2560537

third generation are typically 'group' rights (first being political and second economic)

whereas first generation was about emancipation and legal equality and second about basic social welfare and equal economic opportunity, third generation tends to pull out the 'special status' card to protect group interests (not necessarily rights). Where prior rights were argued based on equality/egalitarianism, very much Rawls, group rights advocates want inequalities to benefit one at the cost of others.

Just having my 'morning' coffee so it might take me a few moments to come up with something less vague.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:31:46 2012 No.2560620

>>2560563

>Another culture condones murder if the victim has done something considered heretical.
so you against the death penalty too?
good on ya.

>without one culture trying to eradicate the other.
can they do this without employing racist language?
how is this done historically?
got some examples we can discuss?

>Straw man
youre using the words wrong.
liberal values are individual liberty and open markets
read john stuart mill

liberal politicians float from liberal to
progressive to socaildemocrat.
but that doesnt matter in our discourse.

>>2560536
what are you arguing for?
you think im silly for stating the obvious? ok.

>'group' rights (first being political and second economic)
'group rights' are guarantees against persecution to individuals
its not like someones opposed to gay corporations.
people are opposed to gay individuals and use state power
to restrict the freedoms(to marry, adopt, work)

what does the venn diagram of ( political ( both ) economic )
look like. i think its mostly an overlap. your thoughts?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:33:45 2012 No.2560631 >>2560576 the last bit of >>2560620 is meant for you bro cheers!

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:45:46 2012 No.2560658

>>2560620

>Death Penalty

Interesting point, but I think your just nitpicking. You need a better example? Native Americans had no concept of land as property. Completely incompatible with European culture.

>Racist Language

I am afraid that I have missed your point somewhere. What does racist language have to do with this discussion? I thought it was about open borders. I was deliberately trying to not make an issue of race. The US has many racial groups but a fairly cohesive culture. Anyways if you can clarify a bit I'll try and respond.

>Liberal values

Ok, I read too fast. But your original argument seemed to be that some individuals are the reason whole cultures can not coexist. But it's not about fear or xenophobia it's about common values and ideals.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:50:46 2012 No.2560667

>>2560620

Wouldn't a proper legal structure alleviate any minorities being persecuted? e.g. the Canadian government legalized gay marriage on the premise that marriage is a legal service offered by the state and must be distributed equally. While both the pro/con sides in the debate argued it as traditional values (christian) vs. secular values (and whose morals ought to translate to policy), the courts stepped in and resolved it as a legal rights issue.

If the goal is to reconcile injustices against minorities or specific groups, or to prevent further injustices by an overbearing state, I'd say following the political and economic rights provide enough of what we need. You're an individual with legal guarantees that are not being met. Not: you're an individual who identifies him/herself as such and such and is thus being discriminated because of said identification.

And yes it all overlaps. But the justifications are different: you have political (legal) rights due to your citizenship (or, in the case of universal human rights, being human); and you have economic rights because society seems to care about your well-being or veil of ignorance logic. What is the justification for group rights? That political or economic rights aren't guaranteed? That your social status/identity makes you an exception to everyone else? That an injustice has not been resolved by the courts?

Seems like lazy policy.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:57:46 2012 No.2560680
File: 3 KB, 300x57, stern zensult.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>without one culture trying to eradicate the other.

People who ascribe some sort of metaphysical "will" or "intentions" to vague abstractions like cultures and religions tend to not know what they're talking about.

A culture doesn't "do" or "try" anything, sport.

>Captcha not necessarily related

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 16:58:48 2012 No.2560682

>>2560658

> Native Americans
i wonder if disease and war didnt kill more
indians that "cultural incompatibility"?
jk.
honestly though you have to realize your
making my point for me.

my point is:
"people are chill lets not use the state
to launch campaigns against idis. of any race"

the indians never got a chance to acclimate
even if they wanted to. they were the victims
of racist policies.

your position seems to be:
"sometimes we have to make special
policies to accomodate special groups"

would you accept that?
if not, why?

> I thought it was about open borders
whats a euphemism, guys? jk.
would you expect to find a high correlation
between opponents of open borders and
admitted racists?
im not necessarily suggesting that you are racist.
some people are, im speaking to them too.

> common values and ideals.
where those values are liberal values as ive defined them, yep.
look at port cities across the world
(new york, chicago, hong kong)
there are dustups yea.
but people dont let notions of race keep them
from getting business done.

my beef is with those that value race above commerce.
that shit is the poison of empires.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:04:48 2012 No.2560701

>>2560667
>the Canadian government legalized gay marriage on the premise that marriage is a legal service offered by the state and must be distributed equally.

This is the new tactic by liberals, get the government involved in everything, and then force leftist policies using the guise of "equality under the law"

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:11:46 2012 No.2560718

>>2560680
Nice ad hominem there, but to deny that culture has any influence on the actions of large groups of people is deliberately stupid. So no the culture doesn't do anything itself, but the people who are influenced by the culture do things like kill people with differing values.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:11:46 2012 No.2560719

>get the government involved in everything

you can redefine liberal to whatever you want.
but it has a traditional meaning.
kids these days not caring about tradition.

btw, that argument is so lazy

>govt bans homo marriage
this is the natural order, guys
no govt. control here, nu uh.
>govt reverses earlier position
wtf! govt takeover

>govt protects the purchase and ownership of guns
no govt control here
>govt qualifies previous position
govt take over!

1generally conservatives dont want "small govt"
2they want "govt that forces my values on others"
(2 isnt unique to conservatives, but 1 is)
thats the antithesis of liberalism.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:15:46 2012 No.2560726

>>2560701

But it is equality under the law. Marriage has always been a legal institution as much as a religious one. If the government is responsible for managing the paperwork of marriage then it must do so impartially and equally. That is, if a civil servant performs the service. They cannot force religious institutions to do so.

>This is the new tactic by liberals
Jurisprudence? Liberals have been doing so since the Magna Carta. Not new nor a tactic.

>get the government involved in everything
The state has always handled Marriage laws.

>and then force leftist policies using the guise of "equality under the law"
Equal opportunity =/= forced policy. You don't have to get gay married you know.

N.B.: it was legalized under a Conservative government.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 17:17:47 2012 No.2560730

>>2560701
> This is the new tactic by liberals, get the government involved in everything, and then force leftist policies using the guise of "equality under the law"
As opposed to getting government off your back and into the uteri of the nation, getting out of your pocket and into your phonelines/internet/mail, and getting them out of the class room and forcing religious groups in?

Makes *PERFECT* sense.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:19:47 2012 No.2560736

>>2560726
That's my point, government should not be involved.

>Marriage has always been a legal institution as much as a religious one.

I don't think it was before the protestant revolutions and binding the state/religion together, making the king the head of the faith.

>>2560730
standard liberal. Get out of my womb dirty government, if i want to murder my child its my business!

>>	OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 17:23:46 2012 No.2560739 >>2560736 Standard retarded Conservative argument... If you're so in favor of keeping babies that aren't wanted, you can fucking well raise them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:23:46 2012 No.2560740 >>2560736 For government 'not to be involved' it would need to legally let all citizens freely associate in any manner they see fit. Gay marriages would still be performed ...not a great situation for conservatives.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:26:47 2012 No.2560746

>>2560719
>1generally conservatives dont want "small govt"

Conservatives DO want small gov. Small meaning, small SIZE, aka not stealing so much in taxes.

>2they want "govt that forces my values on others"
Values are not purely subjective things, there are good values which build a country/community/society and ensure its existence, and then there are bad values.

Conservatives do not want TYRANNY, the liberal/leftist does want tyranny.
Conservative ideals are for the most part, embracing of human nature, leading to maximum happiness and people being well off.

>>2560739
what is adoption?

>>2560740
Correct, and then legally we could not serve them, not hire them, not associate with them, and not allow them in our communities.
That would be freedom and how it should be.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:27:46 2012 No.2560747

>>2560736

>if i want to murder my child its my business!
yep. provided its in your body.
your body = your property.

what if we defined "life" to include animals?
would you defend your right to "murder my animals"?

throwing emotionally loaded words around doesnt win arguments.
logic does.

>>	OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 17:27:46 2012 No.2560748 >>2560740 Conservatives wouldn't know a beneficial situation if it beat them around the head and shoulders. Erich Fromm had the current crop of 'conservatives' pegged 70 years ago.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:28:46 2012 No.2560752

>>2560682

>Native Americans

But, there was war and disease because the cultures could not coexist. Maybe if they had a concept of land ownership, they could have sold the land to European settlers and been able to reach some sort of agreement on territorial rights, etc.

I probably am making your point for you because I don't think we are that far apart in our views. And yes, I guess I could agree with "sometimes we have to make accomodations for special groups". I just don't like the absolute argument that "OPEN BORDERS ARE THE ONLY CIVILIZED SOLUTION TO THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE A RACIST, PRIMITIVE ASSHOLE". It's not representative of reality. There's always bad actors and thus the need for some form of border control.

>Euphemism

It's really more like nationalism than racism, but this being 4chan I can see your point.

So I guess what I am saying is your right dammit. But with some conditions.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:29:46 2012 No.2560754

>>2560746

>Conservatives DO want small gov. Small meaning, small SIZE, aka not stealing so much in taxes.

how will the permanent wars, drug wars, border walls, and uterus inspection be financed?

their agenda is equal in scope to progressives.
the tax burden will be equal or larger.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:32:47 2012 No.2560763

>>2560746

You really think by creating an entirely free association in society that conservative values would be dominant? You really believe you're the one in the position to discriminate and you would not be the discriminated? Conservative values are only as strong as its authoritarian strictures and the authority which enforces those strictures.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 17:39:46 2012 No.2560782

>>2560746
You've just proved in spades you don't understand what you want:

>1generally conservatives dont want "small govt"
>Conservatives DO want small gov. Small meaning, small SIZE, aka not stealing so much in taxes.
So: you want a government that is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do.

If you stated you wanted a LIMITED government, you might have been on to something. Small governments are good for nothing but concentrating power: Soviet Union had a 'Small Government', they had a gigantic bureaucracy.

Conservatives bumped up the size of the last 3 major initiatives by tacking on entitlements, almost to a person everyone added some pork on to TARP, Auto-bailout, healthcare reform.

>2they want "govt that forces my values on others"
>Values are not purely subjective things, there are good values which build a country/community/society and ensure its existence, and then there are bad values.

They are purely subjective when they're based on malformed rhetoric (ie don't teach sex ed, don't offer condoms, wonder why birth rate/HS drop-outs/rape is exploding) with no evidence of effectiveness.

>Conservatives do not want TYRANNY, the liberal/leftist does want tyranny.
Oh, come off it.

PATRIOT ACT, PATRIOT ACT II, SOPA/PIPA... have you been asleep or are you just that indoctrinated: All were written and principally sponsored by Republicans. All failed but for the first because of public outcry, and Patriot Act is still alive because GW Bush decided to disregard the sunset clause.

> Conservative ideals are for the most part, embracing of human nature, leading to maximum happiness and people being well off.
Stop drinking the kool-aid. They've been dictating how people should live their lives and forcing religious ideals that not everyone agrees with, nor is strictly constitutional.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:44:47 2012 No.2560794

>>2560754
republicans are neo-cons, leftists, they are not conservatives.

>>2560763
People accept authoritarian structures because it's what builds a good strong successful society, something that people want to live in.

What is the point of government except to fulfill the will of the people? Not about pushing an agenda that the vast majority of people dislike.
Look at mass immigration, never has it had popular support, yet it continues unabated.

>>2560782
>So: you want a government that is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do.
No i want a government that doesn't steal a huge chunk of my wage and hand it to people who don't even work.

>All were written and principally sponsored by Republicans.
Republicans are mostly NEO-CON'S, which come from trotskyite jewish leftists roots.

>They've been dictating how people should live their lives and forcing religious ideals that not everyone agrees with, nor is strictly constitutional.

lol.
Did you miss california? Millions of people(the majority) vote AGAINST faggot marriage, along comes a QUEER federal judge and says your vote is meaningless!

>with no evidence of effectiveness.
There is plenty of evidence that conservative ideas work well, and the last 60 years is the evidence of the absolute shit that leftist ideas are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:45:49 2012 No.2560800 >>2560752 Nationalism and racism are for all intents and purposes, the same thing. For whites anyways, liberals don't believe that non-whites can be racist or discriminatory.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:46:49 2012 No.2560804

>>2560782

>Conservative ideals are for the most part, embracing of human nature, leading to maximum happiness and people being well off.

I'm going to agree with that being a load of shit. Conservative values have never embraced 'human nature'. Man is sin and only through seeking abstract values can he redeem himself. Conservatives have never been utilitarian or consequentialists either. Maximum well-being in public policy is the reasoning for welfare, universal health care, unemployment insurance, a behemoth public education and gov't student loans... none of those conservative policies.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:47:47 2012 No.2560809

>>2560804
>Maximum well-being in public policy is the reasoning for welfare, universal health care, unemployment insurance, a behemoth public education and gov't student loans... none of those conservative policies.

I'm talking about ACTUAL maximum well being, not the liberal opinion of what benefits people.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:50:47 2012 No.2560814 File: 64 KB, 300x244, 1333503514753.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2560794 >Not about pushing an agenda that the vast majority of people dislike. >He believes that current US policy is disliked by the majority. Maybe in your state.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:51:47 2012 No.2560815 >>2560809 I was talking about aggregate maximum well-being. Go look at them statistics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:52:47 2012 No.2560826 File: 225 KB, 1024x692, ZWhBd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I enjoyed this thread before it became about US federal politics.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:54:46 2012 No.2560829

>>2560814
You think the civil rights movement wasn't massively disliked? Why did the democrats lose the entire south over it huh?

I just fucking told you a fact, the majority of california voted AGAINST gay marriage.

And a homosexual judge comes along and deems it unconstitutional!
Is that the "democratic" way?

The conservatives are not opposed to all government, government has its place.
But government should NOT be actively destroying our economy, society, community, education system, etc.
All these leftists policies WERE widely disliked when they were forced by unpopular government and by judicial activism.

And it's laughable for liberals to talk about whats constitutional, since they fucking hate the constitution anyways.

>>2560815
I don't care about statistics made up by socialists who think living on handouts is helpful to anyone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:56:47 2012 No.2560838 >>2560829 >I don't care about statistics made up by socialists who think living on handouts is helpful to anyone. I'm done.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 17:57:46 2012 No.2560839 >>2560838 Look at the whole "inequality" thing, you think that's real? That's just socialists adjusting the statistics to fit their preconceptions

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 18:01:46 2012 No.2560847 >>2560839 Public education promotes a skilled labour force and contributes to higher continual GNP yields... definitely twisted socialist preconceptions.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 18:01:46 2012 No.2560848

>>2560829
Prop 8 had massive funding for because of the Mormon Church. If the DOJ/IRS investigations point to them funnelling money into it improperly, that will likely cost them their tax shelter. BTW: the 'Majority' is less than 1% of respondents.

Also, it was ruled unconstitutional in Feb. You can pass any moronic law you want, but if it's abridging people's rights, it's not a law worth having. And btw: it's the democratic way, the Judicial branch (which is stacked with republican appointees) over-ruled the legislative branch.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 18:02:46 2012 No.2560849 >>2560847 Yes because that was the original purpose behind mandatory public education....

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 18:04:46 2012 No.2560856

>>2560839
Equal work for equal pay... sounds equitable to me.

Why would you pay someone less when they can leave you and make the same as other people doing the same work elsewhere? If it weren't for union pay-scales (granted it wasn't a magic bullet) you likely wouldn't have seen the non-merchant middle-class after 1929.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 18:04:46 2012 No.2560857 >>2560848 sure sure, gay marriage is a right, how could we have missed that for so long? I guess its just a coincidence that it was struck down by one of the only openly gay judges, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 18:05:46 2012 No.2560859 >>2560849 Statistic outlines public education increased labour force output... disregard statistic since increasing labour force output was the policies initial purpose? What... I... can't win with this guy.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 18:11:46 2012 No.2560872

>>2560859
you really think that the USA benefits from spending on average over 15,000 dollars per year per student?
You are using education as a buzzword which you can just throw around.
With some loose correlation in a some statistics.

Public schooling has always had the point of "brainwashing" students, to be patriotic and loyal, good citizens who would be willing to go off and die in a war.

>>2560856
>Equal work for equal pay... sounds equitable to me.
That's not what inequality is about.

also
>thinking unions caused higher wages
typical socialist. As if money grows on a tree and all we have to do is demand more of it.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 18:18:48 2012 No.2560894

>>2560794
> No i want a government that doesn't steal a huge chunk of my wage and hand it to people who don't even work.
So.. the fact that taxes have remained right where they are for the last 4 years... that's a conspiracy, right?

The only people that have to worry about that is the upper 1%, and if you're here, I doubt you're one of them.

>Republicans are mostly NEO-CON'S, which come from trotskyite jewish leftists roots.
Are... you.. fucking... daft?
www.newamericancentury.org

Signatories were the GW Bush administration... lots of jews in there, eh? Neo-cons are mostly Christian fundies that want to widen that wage gap, because fuck you.

>lol.
>Did you miss california? Millions of people(the majority) vote AGAINST faggot marriage, along comes a QUEER federal judge and says your vote is meaningless!

Asked and answered. The Prop 8 initiative was bogus from the start and was funded by a church that was pushing it's views on society, and it passed by under 4%. Hardly overwhelming.

>with no evidence of effectiveness.
>There is plenty of evidence that conservative ideas work well, and the last 60 years is the evidence of the absolute shit that leftist ideas are.
Did you miss the part about the new deal? Without that, the last 60 years (btw, the last 30 haven't been all that wonderful with bank de-regulation and Glass Steagall repeal... thanks Republicans) would have meant most of the south would be dirt poor, and WWII would seen Japs rolling into CA/OR/WA in earnest. Maybe you'd better pick up a couple economics books before you say something you don't understand again.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 18:25:46 2012 No.2560919

>>2560872
>That's not what inequality is about.
Then please, elucidate.

>typical socialist. As if money grows on a tree and all we have to do is demand more of it.
Well funny you should say that... It costs on average of my lifetime 7% more every year for the same things I always buy, and yet no one thinks THAT is wrong.

Funny, when I work harder every year, I get 2% more, and yet it costs 7% more for everything. If a corporation or bank wants to claim inflation as justification for tacking on extra cost for something that is no different or better than before, then I am fully justified in getting the same amount when my productivity is the same.

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 18:26:46 2012 No.2560924

>>2560894
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
>"Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history.

>So.. the fact that taxes have remained right where they are for the last 4 years... that's a conspiracy, right?

Taxes are absurdly high, the fact they are higher other places do not magically make them low or acceptable.
Government spending 30%+ of GDP, we should massively reduce that.
And it's not even taxes which are the real problem but the insane regulatory burden placed on whites/businesses.
Would you like to make 10,000 more dollars on average with cheaper everything? I wouldn't mind.

>Did you miss the part about the new deal?
You mean what basically caused a great depression extending it for years?

>with bank de-regulation and Glass Steagall repeal
De-reg doesn't the problem, and there was no deregulation anyways. Glass steagall was literally irrelevant.

>Maybe you'd better pick up a couple economics books before you say something you don't understand again.

Maybe YOU should, try America's Great Depression by rothbard.

>and WWII would seen Japs rolling into CA/OR/WA in earnest.
This is a joke, japan wanted nothing to do with america, america was the one who provoked them by cutting off supplies and baiting them with the pacific fleet at pearl harbor.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 18:29:46 2012 No.2560931

>>2560919
FDR was a marxist tyrant, so you really shouldn't quote him. One of the worst presidents in american history.

>Then please, elucidate.
Inequality is about rich being too much richer then the poor.
Liberals believe that this hurts the self-esteem of the poor or something.

>It costs on average of my lifetime 7% more every year for the same things I always buy, and yet no one thinks THAT is wrong.

Then perhaps you should complain about the causes of inflation, hint: Big government, the fed, and jews are behind it.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 18:46:48 2012 No.2560995

as long as male privilege exists, feminism is going to exist as a form of resistance. anecdotal evidence, from a blog:

>"Why are you glad to have been born male? What do women get to do that you envy? I’ve really enjoyed your discussions of male privilege, so if you have more to say on the topic, I’d be thrilled to read it. That said, there are several ways you could address my question without touching upon privilege: peeing standing up vs. wearing skirts; freedom from menstrual cramps vs. gestating, birthing and nursing a baby, etc. etc."

>Are you kidding? I’m glad to be male because no one fucking cares what I do with or to my body. And we’re not just talking about politicians and their nonsense, although they are the most obvious examples of this recently. I’m talking about everyone, in almost every circumstance. No one cares what I wear. No one cares what I weigh or what I eat. No one cares whether I brushed my hair or shaved when I came out of the house. No one cares that I’m having sex, or how much sex I’m having, or what I do with my body as a consequence of having sex. No one cares. And if they do care, they keep it to themselves because I’m a guy and it’s not their fucking business anyway.

as a guy myself, i know this is all true. i don't have to worry about any of that shit, but women sure do. so why be so hostile to women and feminist ideas in general? there's so much power to be HAD by making women worry about these things. you can effectively degrade and abuse them, no problemo, and there's nothing they can do about it, and because its so rampant and ingrained in our culture women just deal with it, accept it, even propagate it, infecting their daughters and their peers by enforcing the norms, judging them based on their perceived non-conformity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 18:48:47 2012 No.2561002 oh sorry i thought this was a feminism thread. CARRY ON FELLOW RETARDS <3

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:07:46 2012 No.2561042 >>2560995 >male privilege get lost

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 19:08:46 2012 No.2561043

This may end up as 2 posts, sorry for the book.

>>2560924
> defense intellectuals
You missed the part where the rest of them are good ol' born-again Christians. Look at the signatories of PNAC.

> Taxes are absurdly high,
Welp, how do? you mean reduce spending by knocking out entitlements when there's a divisive bill in the house?

> Would you like to make 10,000 with cheaper everything?
If you think that would happen, you need to get your head out of the bleach bucket. If everything cost less, employers just claw back: happened at least 4 times in the last 30 years.

A well regulated product (note, not excessively) testing regimen is good for consumers and businesses if an impartial 3rd party has to test something: it boosts consumer confidence, and that means more money. Can you agree on that?

> You mean what basically caused a great depression extending it for years?
No, the depression was in full swing for about 4 years before the new deal was passed. Stock market crashed in 1929, new deal was passed in 1933: note, the poorly regulated market didn't do shit to help.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 19:08:46 2012 No.2561046

>>2560924

> De-reg doesn't the problem, Glass steagall was literally irrelevant.
The 60 years of it being in force where banks couldn't get into conflicts of interest and no major depressive events in that time. Glass Steagall was consumer protection at its core.

> and there was no deregulation anyways.
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act
Hello Savings and Loan meltdown in 1986, and hello $88 Billion dollar bail-out. Thanks Ronnie.

>Maybe YOU should, try America's Great Depression by rothbard.
Rothbard totally ignores the fact that the gold-backed dollar was the reason there were panics for currency and basically de-railed the American economy from 1929 to 1933.

> This is a joke, japan wanted nothing to do with america,
Without economic power (deficit spending) provided by the New Deal, America could never have afforded the blockade ships.

Cause and effect.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 19:15:47 2012 No.2561061

>>2560931
> FDR was a marxist tyrant, so you really shouldn't quote him. One of the worst presidents in american history.
Rhetoric aside, if you don't live in the utter lap of luxury, or in dirt poverty, thank him: the banks had no interest in having a middle class until it became profitable.

> Inequality is about rich being too much richer then the poor.
Liberals believe that this hurts the self-esteem of the poor or something.
Not.. quite... With respect to fair compensation: one unit of work deserves a set pay no matter the gender/race of the worker doing it.

If you're talking about income differential, fine. I think a dollar should be taxed as a dollar no matter WHO has it, individual, company, financial entity or bank.

>Then perhaps you should complain about the causes of inflation, hint: Big government, the fed, and jews are behind it.
Oh, you mean the people that keep driving up the price to buy a finished product even when the costs for materials, taxes and labor stay the same or go down? Seems to me they're the ones in the boardrooms of major corporations, and yes, I fully blame them.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:20:47 2012 No.2561074 [DELETED]

>>2560995
>Are you kidding? I’m glad to be male because no one fucking cares what I do with or to my body. And we’re not just talking about politicians and their nonsense, although they are the most obvious examples of this recently. I’m talking about everyone, in almost every circumstance. No one cares what I wear. No one cares what I weigh or what I eat. No one cares whether I brushed my hair or shaved when I came out of the house. No one cares that I’m having sex, or how much sex I’m having, or what I do with my body as a consequence of having sex. No one cares. And if they do care, they keep it to themselves because I’m a guy and it’s not their fucking business anyway.
No one cares that my parents mutilated my genitals and made it so that I'll never feel sex as I was meant to feel it. No one cares that I'm expected to give my body up to the military or face prison and exclusion from federal assistance like food stamps. No one cares that I'm expected to live shorter lives than women, that my gender assaulted at a much higher rate than women, or faces harsher prison sentences than women for the same crimes. No one cares if a woman hits me, but if I was to hit that women, even as an act of immediate reciprocation, I would be ostracized and very likely arrested.

Feminists sure love to whinge about male privilege, but seem pretty blind to female privilege. I wonder why that is?

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:22:48 2012 No.2561080

>>2560995
>Are you kidding? I’m glad to be male because no one fucking cares what I do with or to my body. And we’re not just talking about politicians and their nonsense, although they are the most obvious examples of this recently. I’m talking about everyone, in almost every circumstance. No one cares what I wear. No one cares what I weigh or what I eat. No one cares whether I brushed my hair or shaved when I came out of the house. No one cares that I’m having sex, or how much sex I’m having, or what I do with my body as a consequence of having sex. No one cares. And if they do care, they keep it to themselves because I’m a guy and it’s not their fucking business anyway.
No one cares that my parents mutilated my genitals and made it so that I'll never feel sex as I was meant to feel it. No one cares that I'm expected to give my body up to the military or face prison and exclusion from federal assistance like food stamps. No one cares that I'm expected to live a shorter life than the average woman, that my gender is assaulted at a much higher rate than women, or that it faces harsher prison sentences than women for the same crimes. No one cares if a woman hits me, but if I was to hit that women, even as an act of immediate reciprocation, I would be ostracized and very likely arrested.

Feminists sure love to whinge about male privilege, but seem pretty blind to female privilege. I wonder why that is?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:22:48 2012 No.2561082 Please take note that the most ardent anti-feminists are also stormfags who believe in trickle down theory and are as close to objectively wrong as one can be on any political or economic issue.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:24:47 2012 No.2561087

>>2561043
>Can you agree on that?
No, government has no business being regulators, all they do is fuck up the economy.
Look at this latest BP oil spill, they get more money for drilling in deep water, the Cap on liability was 20 million, is this good "regulation" ?

If i wanted to sell you something, why should the government stand between us?

>Stock market crashed in 1929, new deal was passed in 1933:
You miss the cause of the problem, which was the credit expansion during the 20's, which INEVITABLY leads to a crash.

>If everything cost less, employers just claw back: happened at least 4 times in the last 30 years.
This is due to constant inflation since we are off the gold standard. Also there is so much other things going on as well.
Wages go up due to increases in worker productivity, you cannot "regulate" things to be cheaper, you cannot "regulate" or legislate people to be paid more.

As people produce more, they can naturally afford more in trade.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:26:47 2012 No.2561095

>>2561046
>The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (H.R. 4986) (often abbreviated DIDMCA or MCA) is a United States federal financial statute passed in 1980 and signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 31st.

"ronnie" ?

>Glass Steagall was consumer protection at its core.
It's more that it was irrelevant and not in existance anywhere else in the world. Further it had no effect on the bubble/crash, since all sorts of institutions were bankrupt and the regulation doesn't effect the real core of the problem.

>Rothbard totally ignores the fact that the gold-backed dollar was the reason there were panics for currency

Nononono, the reason there is panics is because they were PRINTING MONEY ENDLESSLY, devaluing it. And so people wanted gold instead of lesser value paper. The gold standard brings stability!
There are runs on banks because the banks are literally stealing people's money!

>Without economic power (deficit spending) provided by the New Deal, America could never have afforded the blockade ships.

Not sure what the new deal has to do with deficit spending during a war time. Pretty sure most of it had been declared unconstitutional by that point anyways.

And if america had not been involved, Germany would have probably won, and the world would be a far better place.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:30:46 2012 No.2561109

>>2561061
>the banks had no interest in having a middle class until it became profitable.
What do the banks have to do with a middle class?

>With respect to fair compensation: one unit of work deserves a set pay no matter the gender/race of the worker doing it.

The world doesn't operate on "fairness", and in a free market, one "unit" of work gets the same pay.

Further, if you care anything about freedom, then what a person is paid is between THEM and their employer, BOTH of them agreed on this wage, so BOTH of them found it acceptable.

>Seems to me they're the ones in the boardrooms of major corporations, and yes, I fully blame them.

In a free market, prices always trend down.

If you want to yell "greedy" at a capitalist or business who charges more, then you are equally greedy and at fault for asking for more wage.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:32:47 2012 No.2561115

>>2561080

this is all a product of the patriarchy and honestly you obviously aren't that well read in feminism if you don't think feminists care about this

admittedly feminists have been more concerned with women because they are and have been much more oppressed within society

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:36:47 2012 No.2561129 >>2561115 women are not oppressed, they are just different, and that sort of commie rhetoric won't get you anywhere here.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:37:46 2012 No.2561137

Feminism made it impossible for a man to find a woman he truly likes. Since all women have revoked the duties of housework and child-bearing, and have narrowed acceptable men, it's hell in the dating world.

The best response to this is, "Haha, beta faggot, guess you can't get a STRONG woman," just so you know. Might as well give you your counter-arguments since I've heard all of them.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:37:46 2012 No.2561138

>>2561115
>this is all a product of the patriarchy and honestly you obviously aren't that well read in feminism if you don't think feminists care about this
Feminists don't. I'm sick of being told feminism is a gender equality issue whenever these issues are brought up, because feminism does NOTHING about any of them. And, please, genital mutilation is less pressing an issue than gender roles in the media and getting hit on in an elevator?

Feminism is an advocacy group for women. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with claiming that men have it wonderful out of one side of your mouth and trying to marginalize any and all male issues out of the other by claiming that women "have it worse" (which I can't help but notice sounds distinctly like chivalrous bullshit).

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:43:47 2012 No.2561154 >>2561137 You now realize /a/ is ahead of its time.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:46:46 2012 No.2561161

>>2561154
/a/ isn't truly ahead of their time; they are in denial. However, I can't blame them for their position, I really can't.

It's only going to get harder, unless somehow the genders switch to a point in that women become the pursuers and men the pursued. It can't work with this awkward 'balance'. That's why the concept of love was invented, in order to keep the family structure and promote it's upkeep even when there's no logical reason to anymore.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:49:47 2012 No.2561164

>>2561129

women get paid less for the same jobs, and have a whole host of societal pressures that men do not experience, the conviction of rapists is appallingly low etc etc

and they have been oppressed throughout history, gaining the right to vote after men, having what they can do with their bodies dictated to by men etc

also

>using commie as a putdown

yeah, don't be stupid and do this

>>2561138

>genital mutilation

lol, just lol, as someone with a circumsised penis, yes this really does not affect my life at all, i couldn't care less about it, genital mutilation draws parallels to female genital mutilation, which is much, much worse

so yes, it's less of an issue, it really doesn't affect me day today, should it happen? probably not, and you'll find feminists agreeing with this

feminism has been part of advocating rights for women yes, and thats what its born out of, but what it really does it attack patriarchy and advocate for a gender equal society

you will find some feminists who are fucking awful yes, as you will find in whatever circle you come into contact with some of them are shit

recognising that women have 'had it worse' is not chivalrous, saying that they need more help than men can be construed as chivalrous, which they don't, but the privilege that men are afforded needs to be eroded

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:52:46 2012 No.2561171

>>2561161

In denial of what? From the pastas you can read, there are guys with waifus who are well into their thirties and have more than their fair share of life experiences and past relationships.

Of course you have a few who are what anyone would call "social rejects", and have no say in the matter, but many of them don't pursue women because "they're not worth the trouble, the sacrifices, the time and the emotional involvement necessary in a relationship."

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:54:46 2012 No.2561175

>>2561164
>lol, just lol, as someone with a circumsised penis, yes this really does not affect my life at all, i couldn't care less about it, genital mutilation draws parallels to female genital mutilation, which is much, much worse
Is it? Women who've been circumcised disagree. In fact, they sound even more enthusiastic about their mutilation than you do about yours.

>The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm; the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in lubrication and pain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:55:46 2012 No.2561176

>>2561161
Actually, I highly recommend GirlWritesWhat's videos on Youtube. She doesn't seem to be speaking with pure emotion, and has some good points on the matter of Feminism and what it's done. Particularly her "Men Not Marrying" video.

>>2561171
Waifuism is denial of the fact that love doesn't exist. Many women already understand this, and this is why the dating world is full of dating a lot of people and then picking one that might be worthwhile. Waifuists, as I call them, are living in denial of their own failures as well as the reality of society, and are projecting the idea of love onto fictional characters because there is no one else to project it unto.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:56:46 2012 No.2561180 >>2561164 >women get paid less for the same jobs, No they don't, they get paid MORE for the same job now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 19:59:47 2012 No.2561185 >>2561176 >Waifuism is denial of the fact that love doesn't exist. And that's supposed to be... a bad thing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:00:47 2012 No.2561187 >>2561180 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 20:00:47 2012 No.2561189

Another long one...

>>2561095
> Ronnie
Ronald Reagan... Did I seriously need to spell that out?

Just so I know, how old are you Anon? I think I'm talking about things that you mightn't have had to deal with.

> It's more that it was irrelevant and not in existance anywhere else in the world. There are tenants of Glass Steagall in most other countries, but they weren't dealing with the kind of concentrated wealth and risky ventures as in the US.

Canada has had similar regulations as part of the UK system since confederation, but again, not quite the same thing.

Point of fact, the few really solid banks in the US have their main banks in other countries: RBC/TD/Scotiabank/HSBC etc. are all head quartered in other countries, and their holding companies are separate entities from their brokerages and commercial banks.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:02:46 2012 No.2561193 >>2561180 Even when they were paid less, it was proven that they had the same exact fucking wage, but it ended up being less overall because women took more days off for sickness and all that shit.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 20:03:47 2012 No.2561195

>> 2561095
>Nononono, PRINTING MONEY
Money couldn't be printed endlessly, that was the reason the gold standard failed: If there's no give in the system, little problems always turn into huge panics. 1836, 1907, 1930... etc.

>There are runs on banks ...stealing people's money!
... okay, and this is why the commercial banks shouldn't be able to be brokerages as well: if there is a major shortfall there, they have liquid capital in the form of FDIC insured accounts.

This was the purpose of Glass Steagall: it stopped banks from internally stealing from Peter (commercial accounts) to pay Paul (brokerage shortfalls). Does that make sense?

>Not sure what the new deal has to do with deficit spending during a war time.

Not as I understand it.. and this is pre-war time. When the new deal dropped the gold standard officially (Nixon dropped it totally, that old leftie sarcasm), the power to deficit spend without hacking up (what became mandatory) spending meant the US Navy could pay to build ships without having to get the treasury to fire-sale assets.

> And if america had not been involved, Germany would have probably won, and the world would be a far better place.
That's debatable: Germany couldn't have stood against a Russian/Chinese onslaught. Their backs were broken on Operation Barbarossa.

What would have happened more than likely would be a cold war between Russia/China/Britain as the UK's Navy was larger than the rest, and if the French Versailles Gov't was liberated, Europe would have been divided between UK/France/Russia with fighting over the Italian Navy, and most of the middle east would be contested as well.

Basically, Russia would then dominate because they're the only one of the 4 that was oil sufficient throughout the whole conflict.... But that's just my opinion.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:04:47 2012 No.2561200

>>2561185
Well yes. Love wasn't invented until the 50's. Love is a bit like the American Dream, or the idea that college is the only requirement/path to a satisfying career. It's fake, and the more you pursue it and get consistently shot down, the more unhappy you will be.

The traditional relationship was an economic contract. The man did work so the woman and children could eat, as well as protect them and be the outward figure, the woman took care of the house and children, and provided sex to the man. With this, it's no wonder that men ruled the world; they had to be the frontline, so of course they took over what they could. When women gained the ability to do work, as they should because modern society inhibits no one , there's no need for that structure anymore, leading to love as the dominant structure for family making.

However, love is SUCH a romanticized ideal it couldn't POSSIBLY exist, except for the lucky few.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:05:49 2012 No.2561207 >>2561200 >Love wasn't invented until the 50's. I'm French, and I'm pretty sure you just insulted around 500 years worth of literature, if not more.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:07:46 2012 No.2561213

>>2561207
I don't know about the French, I'm mostly an American and Greek guy, so maybe I'm wrong from the French's perspective.

But nothing from American or Greek literature implies that men in a relationship were appreciated for anything other than their ability to provide and women were appreciated for anything other than their beauty.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:13:46 2012 No.2561233

>>2561213
Not the same guy, but what about Romeo and Juliette? Or Dumas' Comte de Monte Cristo, in which a girl who wanted to be married to one guy but not to the one here father chose because she wasn't in love with him.

In any case infatuation wasn't invented in America in the 50s

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:14:46 2012 No.2561237 I'm not even sure that there ever was an old atheism.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:14:46 2012 No.2561238

>>2561213

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love

Also, before the medias took hold of it and pretty much set standards for beauty, it was entirely subjective.

I remember my grand-father rambling about how my grand-mother was the most beautiful woman he had ever seen, and after discussing the subject with other family members, even in those days' standards, she was a 7/10, at most.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:15:46 2012 No.2561243

>>2561189
>Ronald Reagan... Did I seriously need to spell that out?

Except it was past by jimmy carter, not ronnie.

WHY do banks fail? Is it magic? No, its because they loan out far more money then they could ever possibly pay back. Which is why there is serious "deflation" during the great depression, because the pyramid of credit vanishes with the bank.

The problem is that existing in the first place, not the crash.

>>2561195
>Money couldn't be printed endlessly, that was the reason the gold standard failed:

It's a problem because it WAS being printed endlessly. Which is why FDR defaulted on gold payments and made private gold ownership illegal.

>This was the purpose of Glass Steagall: it stopped banks from internally stealing from Peter (commercial accounts) to pay Paul (brokerage shortfalls). Does that make sense?

I can't see how this would matter, they are either making money or they don't make money. Do we need laws to tell businesses to make money?

>Germany couldn't have stood against a Russian/Chinese onslaught.

huh? Why would the chinese be with the russians? You are aware that the USA is the primary reason why the marxists won?

>and if the French Versailles Gov't was liberated
Why would the nazi's permit this anyways? They would always have liberated the west in exchange for peace. It wasn't hitler who was the war monger.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:16:46 2012 No.2561246

>>2561175

>implying 137 is a useful sample size

even if it was all the same type of fgm, but it isn't even that

also, it just focuses on sex, it disregards all sorts of health complications that can arise from it

comparing fgm to circumsision is one of the dumbest MRA's things i've seen, so well played

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:17:46 2012 No.2561248 [DELETED]

>>2561175
So, what? No response? Fine, can we stop using women in third world countries to justify the genital mutilation of men in western countries now, and while we're at it can we stop acting as if western women suffered by proxy every atrocity committed against women everywhere on planet earth?

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 20:19:46 2012 No.2561255
File: 418 KB, 480x360, 1WL8i.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2561109
>What do the banks have to do with a middle class?
In the 18th/19th centuries when banks in the US/UK folded, they typically absorbed all money in commercial accounts. Most individuals only ever dealt with one bank, so when a bank closed, that was it, all money was gone. There was no reason to go to a bank if it wasn't safe.

Regulation forced banks to standardize operation in order to qualify for FDIC insurance, so that would boost consumer confidence which encouraged investment, which created the middle class.

>The world doesn't operate on "fairness",
I'm not talking across an industry, I'm talking within a single company.

> Further, if you care anything about freedom,
It has nothing to do with freedom: Employees talk/bitch: if they find out the lazy one gets paid the same, they'll slack off, if they find that one gets more, they'll ask for a raise or leave... that does the company no good.

>In a free market, prices always trend down.
Unfortunately, commodity pricing on oil is way up, but the cost to get it is actually down.

>If you want to yell "greedy" at a capitalist or business who charges more, then you are equally greedy and at fault for asking for more wage.
That's false on it's face when a corporation increases wages at less than the rate of inflation... which they've been doing for the last 30 years. I don't begrudge someone making money, (Like most people) I'm not looking to get rich, but I'd like to make it by and not end up having to pay more for no reason other than greed.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 20:23:46 2012 No.2561270

>>2561246
>implying 137 is a useful sample size
Better than your anecdotal sample size of 1.

>also, it just focuses on sex, it disregards all sorts of health complications that can arise from it
It's not as if male circumcision is a bastion of hygiene in third world countries either.

>comparing fgm to circumsision is one of the dumbest MRA's things i've seen, so well played
You're actually the one to compare the two, dipshit.

It's kind of funny how desperate you are to justify this shit in first world countries, though. What an affront to women to acknowledge that men suffer too! Whatever will come of feminism if western women don't win every single match of the oppression olympics!?

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 20:50:47 2012 No.2561336

>>2561243
>>2561189
>Except it was past by jimmy carter, not ronnie.
He didn't do anything in the lead up to the S&L collapse even though he was told about it.

>WHY do banks fail? Is it magic? No, its because they loan out far more money then they could ever possibly pay back.
So the answer is to *not* tell them that this isn't acceptable?

>It's a problem FDR defaulted on gold payments
The rationale behind it was sound... individuals were hoarding gold. If that's the standard for the treasury, and there is no way to finance it back, you'll see a collapse.

Again, this is a problem with the gold standard that austrian economics can't quite fix.

>I can't see how this would matter, they are either making money or they don't make money. Do we need laws to tell businesses to make money?
Separating risky entities from commercial and holding entities created stability. If a stock broker folds, it shouldn't be allowed to reap money off FDIC insured commercial accounts, it's technically not their money in any case: you're not investing in a commercial bank.

>You are aware that the USA is the primary reason why the marxists won?
I wasn't aware that the US was involved in WWII in June of 1941. Both Russia and China had axes to grind with Japan.

>It wasn't hitler who was the war monger.
I don't recall the French storming the Danzig, Czech rep./Slovakia and Poland.

Jesus.. did you think the Reich had title to all of Europe? If he wasn't a warmonger, why invade Northern Africa to get an allies' navy out of the Med?

I hope you're trolling.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 21:00:46 2012 No.2561348

>>2561336
>So the answer is to *not* tell them that this isn't acceptable?

that's not at all what you are talking about or proposing. And has nothing to do with glass steagle.

>Again, this is a problem with the gold standard that austrian economics can't quite fix.
It's not a problem, the problem is that you are a statist who thinks the government should have unlimited power and authority.

>Separating risky entities from commercial and holding entities created stability.
The commercial banks fell too, because they weren't stable at all, they are propped up with free money from the fed.

>I wasn't aware that the US was involved in WWII in June of 1941.

Talking about marxist victory in china after WW2.

>Jesus.. did you think the Reich had title to all of Europe?
Germany has title to german lands, do you think poland/czech should be able to oppress them endlessly?
You know that this is a period where the allies were massively expanding their colonies?

The polish were the ones who wanted war.

>why invade Northern Africa to get an allies' navy out of the Med?
Military necessity.

It was the allies who declared war on Germany.

Funny how they gave half of europe to the soviets afterwards, really pisses all over their claims that they were fighting against tyranny or someone who invades.

Try actually seeing real history and context, rather then being a brainwashed retard.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 21:02:48 2012 No.2561356

>>2561255
>which created the middle class.

I have no idea where you got this idea.

These banks folded because they were literally stealing money.

>Unfortunately, commodity pricing on oil is way up, but the cost to get it is actually down.

Do you not understand how supply/demand/uncertainty works?
The cost is really going up because the value of the dollar is way down

>That's false on it's face when a corporation increases wages at less than the rate of inflation... which they've been doing for the last 30 years.

So you want a return to the gold standard, which is the only thing that could stop this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 21:08:46 2012 No.2561369 >>2561238 I still doubt the concept's existence. It seems too farfetched to me.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 21:28:46 2012 No.2561390

>>2561348
>that's not at all what you are talking about or proposing. And has nothing to do with glass steagle.
1: yes it is.
2: It does, limiting risk.

>It's not a problem, the problem is that you are a statist who thinks the government should have unlimited power and authority.

No, I think that banks should not be able to steal money from commercial accounts.

>The commercial banks fell too, because they weren't stable at all, they are propped up with free money from the fed.
Banks mixed the commercial, holding and investment portions, when one went down in 1929, it took them all down and used all the liquid cash to cover their shortfalls to their principal investors, and to hell with account holders.

>> I wasn't aware that the US was involved in WWII in June of 1941.
> Talking about marxist victory in china after WW2.
I'm talking about Operation Barbarossa... I even said that.

>Germany has title to german lands, do you think poland/czech should be able to oppress them endlessly?
Germany had no title to lands it lost after capitulation in WWI. You can't agree to forfeit land and then try to take it back.

> The polish were the ones who wanted war.
So, the Pols invaded Germany? Oh, wait a minute...

>Military necessity.
So it was a military necessity to invade Russian territory when there was a non-aggression pact?

> It was the allies who declared war on Germany.
Nazis broke their own treaty. Provoking an attack is the same thing as a declaration.

> Funny how they gave half of europe to the soviets afterwards,
Gave?
Dude, you need to get used to the fact that Germany had no bargaining chips, they couldn't muster resistance enough. Russia TOOK what they conquered.

> Try actually seeing real history and context, rather then being a brainwashed retard.
Try trolling harder instead of derping like /b/tard.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 21:39:57 2012 No.2561414

>>2561390
>2: It does, limiting risk.
If you put your money in a bank, it's still yours, they are supposed to just be holding it, they have defrauded and robbed you if they go bankrupt/can't return it to you.

Anyways, you are focusing on the wrong shit, the problem is the fiat currency and the credit expansion, which inevitably leads to a crash.

>You can't agree to forfeit land and then try to take it back.
Which is why Alsace Lorain is german today, right?

>So, the Pols invaded Germany?
The polish wanted war just as much as the germans did, they felt they could gain. And guess what, they did.

>So it was a military necessity to invade Russian territory when there was a non-aggression pact?
Russians were preparing to invade, the war between them was inevitable. Pretty sure that the russians broke it first anyways. The communists were all fucking liars anyways, thinking they will hold to a treaty is just being retarded.

>Nazis broke their own treaty.
Wasn't the nazi's who signed versaille.

>Provoking an attack is the same thing as a declaration.
Sure sure sure, all victims of crime are guilty of provoking the criminal, good logic.

>Gave?
learn 2 yalta.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 21:44:58 2012 No.2561421

>>2561356

>These banks folded because they were literally stealing money.
When you can stop a criminal practise and replace it with one that fosters trust, investment and growth... People that have a little money can put it in a bank and earn interest instead of in a mattress and let it do nothing. If you spend 10-20 years diligently earning interest, you can actually get yourself out of poverty.

I shouldn't say it created the middle class, but not worrying about your money disappearing sure didn't hurt.

>Do you not understand how supply/demand/uncertainty works?
Yes, but demand side economics dictates that you moderate a price to encourage buying... oil doesn't suffer from that limitation.

> The cost is really going up because the value of the dollar is way down
That's a farce. In that case oil prices would be steady or lower where the currency value is high, and that isn't the case.

>So you want a return to the gold standard, which is the only thing that could stop this.
Gold standard doesn't stop inflation. It actually encourages volatility in currency prices, which in turn affects commodity pricing.

At this point, the gold standard isn't a viable alternative because the monetary value of gold is so far removed from it's use as a commodity that it isn't a viable currency backer.

When you boil it down, there's only one thing backing every currency: TRUST.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 21:50:58 2012 No.2561431

>>2561421
>People that have a little money can put it in a bank and earn interest instead of in a mattress and let it do nothing.

Yes because those are the only two options possible.

>and replace it with one that fosters trust, investment and growth
So people should be able to lynch bankers after they do shady things? I agree.

>Yes, but demand side economics dictates that you moderate a price to encourage buying...

There is no demand or supply side economics, it's just trade going on. The price is mutually agreeable and both parties benefit.

>That's a farce.
They've printed trillions of dollars, the fed is throwing around massive trillion dollar loans, this devalues the dollar.

>In that case oil prices would be steady or lower where the currency value is high
You are talking about relative value to other countries, the reality is the dollar goes steadily down down down because they keep printing money.

>Gold standard doesn't stop inflation.
Yes it does.

>When you boil it down, there's only one thing backing every currency: TRUST.
uh no. That's the point of a gold standard, so the government can't just print fiat and pay you off with worthless paper, you can go "i demand gold for my payments".

>It actually encourages volatility in currency prices, which in turn affects commodity pricing.

Doubtful, its more that the government has always been fucking around with fiat currencies and with the economy.
Also you really cannot just go, oh we had a gold standard then, and we don't now, therefore everything that has changed is because we're off the gold standard.
The 18th/18/th centuries were glorious times of massive innovation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 21:52:57 2012 No.2561436 >>2561431 19th*

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 22:15:57 2012 No.2561500

>>2561414
> they have defrauded and robbed you if they go bankrupt/can't return it to you.
Agreed: If a bank wants to qualify for FDIC coverage, they have to conform to their rules. The coverage is just a worm on a hook.

>fiat currency and the credit expansion
Hundreds of Gold backed currencies have crashed in the last few centuries as well.

>Which is why Alsace Lorain is german today, right?
Its French.
It was French after WWI... when Germany was defeated.
It was French after WWII... when Germany was defeated.
See the pattern?

>The polish wanted war just as much as the germans did,
Ahh.. okay., so in other words, Hitler knew he'd start a war, struck first, but he's somehow *not* a warmonger?

>Russians were preparing to invade, the war between them was inevitable.
When you know someone is moving tanks, troops and aircraft towards your borders, it's a safe bet they're not bringing a basket of flowers.

> Pretty sure that the russians broke it first anyways.
You would be wrong.

> thinking they will hold to a treaty is just being retarded.
And the Nazis were any better?

>Wasn't the nazi's who signed versaille.
If they formed the German government, they're bound to the same treaty.

>Sure sure sure, all victims of crime are guilty of provoking the criminal, good logic.
I've heard the "she asked for it" defence from people about as smarmy as Hitler.

If you think Germany wasn't the agitator in WWII, you're wrong.

>learn 2 yalta.
Germany capitulated, and had no say in the matter.

In war: to the victors go the spoils... divide accordingly.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 22:27:58 2012 No.2561523

>>2561500
>FDIC coverage
nononono, the government should not be involved. FIDC is all nonsense anyways because if the bank fails they won't be able to cover shit.

>Its French.
It was majority german, which is why the germans fought over it in 1870.
The only pattern i see is that you are an idiot.

>so in other words
No, in "other words" it was an irrelevant land dispute that the allies turned into a causi belli for another world war. Really goes to show how much the allies cared about poland/czechoslovakia when THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION WERE UNDER SOVIET CONTROL AFTER THE WAR.

>When you know someone is moving tanks, troops and aircraft towards your borders, it's a safe bet they're not bringing a basket of flowers.

And you think the soviets were just sitting on their asses or something? Further the nazi's were doing gods work and dealing with the filthy communists.

>If they formed the German government, they're bound to the same treaty.
No they aren't.

>If you think Germany wasn't the agitator in WWII, you're wrong.
If you think international politics works in this simplistic a manner, then you are clueless.
If you think the allies didn't want war, then you are again clueless.
Funny how the soviets were invading all countries around, and they were the good guys huh?

>In war: to the victors go the spoils... divide accordingly.

Hence my point you retard, the allies said "here is all of europe mr stalin".

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 22:47:56 2012 No.2561557

>>2561431

I'm starting to thing chat would be a good idea.

>Yes because those are the only two options possible
In 1929 as an individual depositor in an undifferentiated bank: yes.

>So people should be able to lynch bankers after they do shady things? I agree.
It'd iron things out, but then again, if they have more money, they have better security details.

> The price is mutually agreeable and both parties benefit.
That's not what you call an agreeable price.. it's collusion and extortion, or in otherwords, the oil market.

>massive trillion dollar loans, this devalues the dollar.
And if they all of a sudden had only a set amount of money that they could never, ever go above, no matter how bad the circumstances are? The other thing: the bailouts are loans. They accrue interest. It'll hurt like a bastard, but it's not just forking out money.

>In that case oil prices would be steady or lower where the currency value is high
You are talking about relative value to other countries, the reality is the dollar goes steadily down down down because they keep printing money.

> Yes it does.
Okay, point taken but getting back to the exigent circumstances OH MY GOD! THE RUSSIANS IS COMIN'!!!!!!1!!1!!!ONE!!! We need to build more war machinery... Well, we have $400 and can't raise taxes.

Where's the Vodka?

Thanks Gold-backed currency.

> "i demand gold for my payments".
Take that to its next logical step:
Gov't says "No."

Well, what are you going to take from the gov't?

>fucking around with fiat currencies
Argument cuts both ways, but we know that governments have defaulted on debts even when they had gold-backed currency

>The 18th/19th centuries were glorious times of massive innovation.
Yep, but the last 70-80 years have totally eclipsed them.

OP_Art_a_Fahjot Fri Apr 13 23:02:57 2012 No.2561586

>>2561523

>nononono, the government should not be involved. FIDC is all nonsense anyways because if the bank fails they won't be able to cover shit.
FDIC charges the bank Insurance premiums (it's the I in FDIC). In the event of a default, the money is paid out to account holders.

If you don't know how this works you really shouldn't be arguing it.

> It was majority german, which is why the germans fought over it in 1870.
> The only pattern i see is that you are an idiot.
Yeah, there were 2 other wars that I listed that were a little closer to now that are a little more relevant.

TROLL HARDER.

>No, in "other words" it was an irrelevant land dispute
When you have 15 armored divisions that are still mobile 20 years after the end of war, it's called prudence. If you're a white belt armchair general, you know enough not to provoke an enemy while they're fully armed and ready and you're de-mobilizing.

The point of the matter is that Germany broke the treaty of Versailles first by creating war materiel it agreed not to.

>gods work and dealing with the filthy communists.
Yep, turns out that God hated Germans.

>No they aren't.
Yeah, they are. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the fact.

>If you think the allies didn't want war, then you are again clueless.
Which is why England tried for a treaty first in 1936.

> Funny how the soviets were invading all countries around, and they were the good guys huh?
Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

>Hence my point you retard, the allies said "here is all of europe mr stalin".
Considering they didn't have a choice either, letting Russia keep what they had was prudent. (Also I thought you were talking about Germany giving territory away)

No need to be harsh either, dickbutt.

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 23:05:56 2012 No.2561589

>>2561557
>In 1929 as an individual depositor in an undifferentiated bank: yes.

They could take their money and invest in their own business or in starting a business, or in an investor, or an investment bank, etc.

Putting your money in a bank is literally the last place you should be putting it.

>it's collusion and extortion, or in otherwords, the oil market.
Just people complaining about how much it costs.

>the bailouts are loans.
Do you not understand the importance of having money available at a specific time when noone else does?
They took the money and bought out their competitors who didn't have big loans!

>no matter how bad the circumstances are?
The government cannot help the economy, it is a parasite.

>We need to build more war machinery... Well, we have $400 and can't raise taxes.
Inflation is just a hidden tax.

>Gov't says "No."
And this is exactly what FDR did. And now we have people complaining about inflation.

>but we know that governments have defaulted on debts even when they had gold-backed currency
Yes, and them defaulting on the debts is far better then looting the whole country via fiat currency to pay it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 13 23:09:57 2012 No.2561592 >new age atheism >turns into... >WW2 Neat

Anonymous Fri Apr 13 23:19:56 2012 No.2561608

>>2561586
>FDIC charges the bank Insurance premiums (it's the I in FDIC). In the event of a default, the money is paid out to account holders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation
They have like 20 billion total in reserves, it ain't much, the insurance is basically worthless.

>Yeah, there were 2 other wars that I listed that were a little closer to now that are a little more relevant.
Is algeria french? Is india british?
It was like 95%+ german at the time of WW1.

>Considering they didn't have a choice either, letting Russia keep what they had was prudent.

After a visit to ruined Berlin, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945: "Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. It's said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed."

This conviction, that the politicians had used him and the U.S. Army for a criminal purpose, grew in the following weeks. During a dinner with French General Alphonse Juin in August, Patton was surprised to find the Frenchman in agreement with him. His diary entry for August 18 quotes Gen. Juin: "It is indeed unfortunate, mon General, that the English and the Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country -- and I do not mean France. Therefore, the road is now open for the advent of Russian communism."

WW2 was fought for the jews and communists.
Further it wasn't a matter of letting russia keep what they had, the allies HALTED and permitted the russians to occupy half of europe.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature