Right-Wing Discussion Thread VIII: McCarthy Was Right

[The V O I D]

1. I'm not; you literally said: "Companies have the right to decide whom to hire and whom not. A state has no right in infringing that." The implications of such, I pointed out.

2. Because they do.

3. Nope, not if you had a contract with them beforehand or not if they paid for it beforehand, and definitely not just because 'they're gay'. We're not 20s America where the coloreds and the whites had to go to different businesses and such to buy.

4. Yeah, and if/when they do, that corporation/company gets fined for discrimination. Or gets forced to uphold their end of the contract/deal. The only way to avoid discrimination and such and to avoid this would be to shut your company down entirely if you really don't wanna serve gays.

5. It's far easier to simply point out that an individuals' rights are far more important than any organization's.

1) That does not mean I prefer putting indivdual rights above those of companies. Not corporations.

2) No, they do not inherently. Neither I think it is a good thing to do so.

3) Yes, if I had a contract. But I said it is in my right to refuse to take orders from them.

4) How oppressive! People are forced to serve others, but didn't you say beforehand that it is bad to step into other's people's rights?

5) No, it is not. Both are difficult, except when you take them for granted. Which I assume you do.

1. What even is this sentence?

2. Well, cool, you're wrong.

3. No, it isn't. If they order, and pay, and you refuse to give it to them - that's theft of their money. Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

4. Not individuals; companies. Individuals in those companies are perfectly free to find someone else who will serve them for the company - or better yet, leave the company, so others can join that company and serve the people. Companies are forced to serve, not people.

5. No, I don't take rights for granted.

[Conscentia]

What does that have to do with me and liberals complaining that liberals aren't liberal enough?

It means you are the same as VOID. You lot are one and the same.

How?

[Aelex]

Certainly not run by you lot. It would be organized like a whorehouse which is where your government apparently has decided to take organizational lessons from.

A whorehouse at least has some level of organization. You chose to ditch the organization but keep the fuckery making your country effectively run like a pimp would his whores. :^)

[The East Marches]

Certainly not run by you lot. It would be organized like a whorehouse which is where your government apparently has decided to take organizational lessons from.

A whorehouse at least has some level of organization. You chose to ditch the organization but keep the fuckery making your country effectively run like a pimp would his whores. :^)

Uncle Sugar a gud boi! He is just a little abusive sometimes. No bully him.

[Aelex]

Nein. The last time you lot did that Paris flowed with blood.

And Berlin. And Madrid. And Moscow. And pretty much every other big city of the continent.
Haaaaaaa, those were good times...

[Gondolaulus]

1) That does not mean I prefer putting indivdual rights above those of companies. Not corporations.

2) No, they do not inherently. Neither I think it is a good thing to do so.

3) Yes, if I had a contract. But I said it is in my right to refuse to take orders from them.

4) How oppressive! People are forced to serve others, but didn't you say beforehand that it is bad to step into other's people's rights?

5) No, it is not. Both are difficult, except when you take them for granted. Which I assume you do.

1. What even is this sentence?

2. Well, cool, you're wrong.

3. No, it isn't. If they order, and pay, and you refuse to give it to them - that's theft of their money. Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

4. Not individuals; companies. Individuals in those companies are perfectly free to find someone else who will serve them for the company - or better yet, leave the company, so others can join that company and serve the people. Companies are forced to serve, not people.

5. No, I don't take rights for granted.

1) Re-read it

2) Ah, you think I am wrong, that is fine.

3) Again, I stated that I refused a contract. They come with an order, and I refuse on the basis because they are homosexual. I believe this is perfectly fine.

4) Nothing is forced to serve. Period.

[The V O I D]

1. Human beings are independent, sapient, sentient, and born; they do not rely upon anyone else to live/exist.

2. It may be that, but it cures the transgender person's dysphoria and helps them live healthy lives.

3. No, it's not. It literally isn't. It has been proven to not be. Denying science or clinging on to old science makes your credibility equivalent to flat-earthers.

4. Not pro-self harm. Pro-bodily sovereignty. None of my business what people do with it.

1) So, conjoined twins and babies are not human beings? Nor are the disabled?

2) They aren't leading healthy lives, they are leading delusional lives that impede their proper functioning.

3) The science of defining mental illness is by no means as rock-hard as the study of geology.

4) Which means you are pro-self harm. If a someone harms themselves, it is not the right of anyone to stop them, correct? But, of course, this bodily sovereignty is overrided when someone uses it to not support your precious LGBT people.

1. See my statement on conjoined twins vs parasitic twins. Disabled people using modern technology can live and exist on their own, for the most part. If not, the state can pay someone to help them if they want that help.

2. Hahahahhahahhahahhaa... ha. Ha. This coming from someone like you is precious, UMN. Please, stop making me laugh.

3. Actually, it is. What you define as mental illness only works if you deny science.

4. I'm not pro-self harm. I am pro-bodily sovereignty. It is none of my business what people do with that sovereignty.

5. If a mother refuses to feed a born infant, that puts the infant at risk of dying of hunger/thirst; violating its rights as a new individual. Therefor, she gets parenting rights revoked and that infant goes to someone else in the family or into the adoption system (infants are very likely to be adopted anyway).

[United Marxist Nations]

1) So, conjoined twins and babies are not human beings? Nor are the disabled?

2) They aren't leading healthy lives, they are leading delusional lives that impede their proper functioning.

3) The science of defining mental illness is by no means as rock-hard as the study of geology.

4) Which means you are pro-self harm. If a someone harms themselves, it is not the right of anyone to stop them, correct? But, of course, this bodily sovereignty is overrided when someone uses it to not support your precious LGBT people.

1. See my statement on conjoined twins vs parasitic twins. Disabled people using modern technology can live and exist on their own, for the most part. If not, the state can pay someone to help them if they want that help.

2. Hahahahhahahhahahhaa... ha. Ha. This coming from someone like you is precious, UMN. Please, stop making me laugh.

3. Actually, it is. What you define as mental illness only works if you deny science.

4. I'm not pro-self harm. I am pro-bodily sovereignty. It is none of my business what people do with that sovereignty.

5. If a mother refuses to feed a born infant, that puts the infant at risk of dying of hunger/thirst; violating its rights as a new individual. Therefor, she gets parenting rights revoked and that infant goes to someone else in the family or into the adoption system (infants are very likely to be adopted anyway).

1) They are still largely dependent on other people.

2) Come again?

3) I would say it is a mental illness because it is a mental state incongruous with reality.

4) Which means you must accept self-harm.

5) What if no one wants to care for the infants or disabled?

My point is, the belief in absolute bodily sovereignty is the foundation of an anarcho-capitalist worldview.

[Conscentia]

Anyone think it's time for a new poll? If so, what do you suggest?

[The V O I D]

1. See my statement on conjoined twins vs parasitic twins. Disabled people using modern technology can live and exist on their own, for the most part. If not, the state can pay someone to help them if they want that help.

2. Hahahahhahahhahahhaa... ha. Ha. This coming from someone like you is precious, UMN. Please, stop making me laugh.

3. Actually, it is. What you define as mental illness only works if you deny science.

4. I'm not pro-self harm. I am pro-bodily sovereignty. It is none of my business what people do with that sovereignty.

5. If a mother refuses to feed a born infant, that puts the infant at risk of dying of hunger/thirst; violating its rights as a new individual. Therefor, she gets parenting rights revoked and that infant goes to someone else in the family or into the adoption system (infants are very likely to be adopted anyway).

1) They are still largely dependent on other people.

2) Come again?

3) I would say it is a mental illness because it is a mental state incongruous with reality.

4) Which means you must accept self-harm.

5) What if no one wants to care for the infants or disabled?

My point is, the belief in absolute bodily sovereignty is the foundation of an anarcho-capitalist worldview.

1. Yes, but the difference is those people are paid to assist them and they can - in some cases - actually try to lead a normal existence because of modern technology.

2. >calling transgender people 'delusional', when there is neurological and psychological science proving such to be false.
>being a believer in some omnipotent guy chilling in the clouds with a large neckbeard whose son came down here to smoke some burning bush and tell humanity that they're chill to come to Cloud City when they die, with the only evidence being a book in a dead language that could've been mistranslated atop numerous mistranslations, that same book also being 2,000+ years old.

It's funny.

3. Except not according to literally every credible source on the planet that isn't run by traditionalists/confirmation bias material.

4. Nah, man, it just means I don't care what people do with their bodies and respect their right to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

5. For the infants, leave them under adoptive care system [as it's literally their job to raise kids until they are adopted, as well as find families willing to adopt]. For the disabled, put them into retirement homes (specifically, the ones for old people who can't care for themselves anymore either). Put them in places where the only people there are obligated to care for them or else they don't get paid and/or are at risk of being fired.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) They are still largely dependent on other people.

2) Come again?

3) I would say it is a mental illness because it is a mental state incongruous with reality.

4) Which means you must accept self-harm.

5) What if no one wants to care for the infants or disabled?

My point is, the belief in absolute bodily sovereignty is the foundation of an anarcho-capitalist worldview.

1. Yes, but the difference is those people are paid to assist them and they can - in some cases - actually try to lead a normal existence because of modern technology.

2. >calling transgender people 'delusional', when there is neurological and psychological science proving such to be false.
>being a believer in some omnipotent guy chilling in the clouds with a large neckbeard whose son came down here to smoke some burning bush and tell humanity that they're chill to come to Cloud City when they die, with the only evidence being a book in a dead language that could've been mistranslated atop numerous mistranslations, that same book also being 2,000+ years old.

It's funny.

3. Except not according to literally every credible source on the planet that isn't run by traditionalists/confirmation bias material.

4. Nah, man, it just means I don't care what people do with their bodies and respect their right to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

5. For the infants, leave them under adoptive care system [as it's literally their job to raise kids until they are adopted, as well as find families willing to adopt]. For the disabled, put them into retirement homes (specifically, the ones for old people who can't care for themselves anymore either). Put them in places where the only people there are obligated to care for them or else they don't get paid and/or are at risk of being fired.

1) But you defined a human being with rights as someone that is independent! Now, as long as we can pay someone to take care of them, they have rights, so why can't we simply pay mothers to not get abortions?

3) So, now they are of the sex they wish to be? No, their mental state is incongruous with their body, that is a fact.

4) Which means you must accept the logical conclusion of that, which is that there is nothing wrong with self-harm.

5) You are not getting the meaning of my question: what if no one (that includes the people in the adoption agencies, the retirement homes, etc) wants to take care of them. Why should the state force them to?

[Benuty]

">being a believer in some omnipotent guy chilling in the clouds with a large neckbeard whose son came down here to smoke some burning bush and tell humanity that they're chill to come to Cloud City when they die, with the only evidence being a book in a dead language that could've been mistranslated atop numerous mistranslations, that same book also being 2,000+ years old."

Well okay first of all thanks for waking me from my slumber from NSG, and second everything in here has to be one of the worst generalizations I have seen to date from you.

It is so bad in fact that Hitler wouldn't even touch this statement with a gas chamber, and Stalin would rise from the dead. On top of it all the Bible isn't a damn book at all.

Oh I am just getting started with this. As punishment I will be going through every page of this new iteration, and responding to it all.

[Conscentia]

">being a believer in some omnipotent guy chilling in the clouds with a large neckbeard whose son came down here to smoke some burning bush and tell humanity that they're chill to come to Cloud City when they die, with the only evidence being a book in a dead language that could've been mistranslated atop numerous mistranslations, that same book also being 2,000+ years old."

Well okay first of all thanks for waking me from my slumber from NSG, and second everything in here has to be one of the worst generalizations I have seen to date from you.
It is so bad in fact that Hitler wouldn't even touch this statement with a gas chamber, and Stalin would rise from the dead. On top of it all the Bible isn't a damn book at all.
Oh I am just getting started with this. As punishment I will be going through every page of this new iteration, and responding to it all.

How does that punish VOID?

[The V O I D]

1. Yes, but the difference is those people are paid to assist them and they can - in some cases - actually try to lead a normal existence because of modern technology.

2. >calling transgender people 'delusional', when there is neurological and psychological science proving such to be false.
>being a believer in some omnipotent guy chilling in the clouds with a large neckbeard whose son came down here to smoke some burning bush and tell humanity that they're chill to come to Cloud City when they die, with the only evidence being a book in a dead language that could've been mistranslated atop numerous mistranslations, that same book also being 2,000+ years old.

It's funny.

3. Except not according to literally every credible source on the planet that isn't run by traditionalists/confirmation bias material.

4. Nah, man, it just means I don't care what people do with their bodies and respect their right to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

5. For the infants, leave them under adoptive care system [as it's literally their job to raise kids until they are adopted, as well as find families willing to adopt]. For the disabled, put them into retirement homes (specifically, the ones for old people who can't care for themselves anymore either). Put them in places where the only people there are obligated to care for them or else they don't get paid and/or are at risk of being fired.

1) But you defined a human being with rights as someone that is independent! Now, as long as we can pay someone to take care of them, they have rights, so why can't we simply pay mothers to not get abortions?

3) So, now they are of the sex they wish to be? No, their mental state is incongruous with their body, that is a fact.

4) Which means you must accept the logical conclusion of that, which is that there is nothing wrong with self-harm.

5) You are not getting the meaning of my question: what if no one (that includes the people in the adoption agencies, the retirement homes, etc) wants to take care of them. Why should the state force them to?

1. Because that isn't how it works. Paying someone to violate their own bodily sovereignty and paying someone to help someone else live is completely different.

3. Yeah, except it's the other way around; their body is incompatible with their mind, and the only way to treat this according to every reputable source is sex change surgery.

4. Sure, but at the same time, I don't endorse suicide or self harm (what I consider self harm, not what you consider self harm).

5. That's an unrealistic scenario, and even if it did happen, unfortunately that means the infant or disabled person will die because no one cared for them. Not a new concept - it happens to homeless people and others in society. It happens; people go uncared for and end up dying.

[Benuty]

Well okay first of all thanks for waking me from my slumber from NSG, and second everything in here has to be one of the worst generalizations I have seen to date from you.
It is so bad in fact that Hitler wouldn't even touch this statement with a gas chamber, and Stalin would rise from the dead. On top of it all the Bible isn't a damn book at all.
Oh I am just getting started with this. As punishment I will be going through every page of this new iteration, and responding to it all.

How does that punish VOID?

By giving them their lack of hearts desires?

The eternal need of everyone here to be masochistically btfo'ed. Only then can balance be restored to us all.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

1. Yes, but the difference is those people are paid to assist them and they can - in some cases - actually try to lead a normal existence because of modern technology.

2. >calling transgender people 'delusional', when there is neurological and psychological science proving such to be false.
>being a believer in some omnipotent guy chilling in the clouds with a large neckbeard whose son came down here to smoke some burning bush and tell humanity that they're chill to come to Cloud City when they die, with the only evidence being a book in a dead language that could've been mistranslated atop numerous mistranslations, that same book also being 2,000+ years old.

It's funny.

3. Except not according to literally every credible source on the planet that isn't run by traditionalists/confirmation bias material.

4. Nah, man, it just means I don't care what people do with their bodies and respect their right to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

5. For the infants, leave them under adoptive care system [as it's literally their job to raise kids until they are adopted, as well as find families willing to adopt]. For the disabled, put them into retirement homes (specifically, the ones for old people who can't care for themselves anymore either). Put them in places where the only people there are obligated to care for them or else they don't get paid and/or are at risk of being fired.

1) But you defined a human being with rights as someone that is independent! Now, as long as we can pay someone to take care of them, they have rights, so why can't we simply pay mothers to not get abortions?

3) So, now they are of the sex they wish to be? No, their mental state is incongruous with their body, that is a fact.

4) Which means you must accept the logical conclusion of that, which is that there is nothing wrong with self-harm.

5) You are not getting the meaning of my question: what if no one (that includes the people in the adoption agencies, the retirement homes, etc) wants to take care of them. Why should the state force them to?

5. I dunno, attempting to make use of the state's resources before they all go to waste?

[Old Tyrannia]

Anyone think it's time for a new poll? If so, what do you suggest?

It might be interesting to ask the denizens of the RWDT to select their favourite significant left-wing figures/leaders.

[Benuty]

Anyone think it's time for a new poll? If so, what do you suggest?

It might be interesting to ask the denizens of the RWDT to select their favourite significant left-wing figures/leaders.

Lets be careful there OT for your are toying with forces none of us are ever capable of understanding.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

Anyone think it's time for a new poll? If so, what do you suggest?

It might be interesting to ask the denizens of the RWDT to select their favourite significant left-wing figures/leaders.

I like this idea. Unfortunately I have no idea who is left-wing anymore besides most of the anarchists, socialists and communists and most of those I don't like. Or really know of.
Still, couldn't hurt to give it a try. Marx at least invented an endearing narrative structure for history, Bakunin was somewhat prescient about any kind of dictatorship...

[Conscentia]

How does that punish VOID?

By giving them their lack of hearts desires?
The eternal need of everyone here to be masochistically btfo'ed. Only then can balance be restored to us all.

No. How about not dredging stuff up from pages ago and spamming the thread with your replies?

[Benuty]

It might be interesting to ask the denizens of the RWDT to select their favourite significant left-wing figures/leaders.

I like this idea. Unfortunately I have no idea who is left-wing anymore besides most of the anarchists, socialists and communists and most of those I don't like either.

Hence my mention of toying with forces beyond our understanding. It could for all we know cause the internet equivalent of a black hole (by virtue of a flame war of course).

[The V O I D]

Anyone think it's time for a new poll? If so, what do you suggest?

It might be interesting to ask the denizens of the RWDT to select their favourite significant left-wing figures/leaders.

...

[Benuty]

By giving them their lack of hearts desires?
The eternal need of everyone here to be masochistically btfo'ed. Only then can balance be restored to us all.

No. How about not dredging stuff up from pages ago and spamming the thread with your replies?

I disagree it must be done in order to make NSG great again.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

I like this idea. Unfortunately I have no idea who is left-wing anymore besides most of the anarchists, socialists and communists and most of those I don't like either.

Hence my mention of toying with forces beyond our understanding. It could for all we know cause the internet equivalent of a black hole (by virtue of a flame war of course).

Oh my. That's something I'd rather avoid seeing reappear.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) But you defined a human being with rights as someone that is independent! Now, as long as we can pay someone to take care of them, they have rights, so why can't we simply pay mothers to not get abortions?

3) So, now they are of the sex they wish to be? No, their mental state is incongruous with their body, that is a fact.

4) Which means you must accept the logical conclusion of that, which is that there is nothing wrong with self-harm.

5) You are not getting the meaning of my question: what if no one (that includes the people in the adoption agencies, the retirement homes, etc) wants to take care of them. Why should the state force them to?

1. Because that isn't how it works. Paying someone to violate their own bodily sovereignty and paying someone to help someone else live is completely different.

3. Yeah, except it's the other way around; their body is incompatible with their mind, and the only way to treat this according to every reputable source is sex change surgery.

4. Sure, but at the same time, I don't endorse suicide or self harm (what I consider self harm, not what you consider self harm).

5. That's an unrealistic scenario, and even if it did happen, unfortunately that means the infant or disabled person will die because no one cared for them. Not a new concept - it happens to homeless people and others in society. It happens; people go uncared for and end up dying.

1) Do not people in both scenarios have the right to refuse, if we believe in absolute bodily sovereignty/

3) The mind is a part of the body, not the body part of the mind. It is the body as a whole which makes them a person. What you suggest would make a brain in a vat a person. It is not, it is merely a brain in a vat, it is no more a person than a corpse on life-support is.

5) So, you accept then that bodily sovereignty gives us the right to refuse to help or support others, correct?