NationStates

Liriena wrote:

Great Minarchistan wrote:No, the point is that you can either ignore them and carry on with college, deal with them and then finish college or dealing with them and not going to college. What you end up picking is up to your preferences on maximization of utility, just be aware that employers wont give you a "you tried" trophy if you give up on college altogether and still have to cope with 10s of thousands of debt.

That's a very roundabout way of admitting that the current socioeconomic system treats college education as a gatekeeping tool to keep the working poor poor.

only if the poor weigh their utility into accrual of capital to the detriment of anything hampering their search for more resources, which is a pretty interesting concept to start off the premise that the poor are just as amoral and unethical as the rich
hmmmmmm

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

So when, exactly, do you intend to fight against the increasing tyranny of the US government? Certainly, if you truly believe this sentiment, you'll've already begun to fight against it, just like 69-year-old Will Van Spronson did recently to try and liberate children from the concentration camps on the border.

Oof, venerating a terrorist. Not a good look for you, Torr, maybe find another hill?

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

So when, exactly, do you intend to fight against the increasing tyranny of the US government? Certainly, if you truly believe this sentiment, you'll've already begun to fight against it, just like 69-year-old Will Van Spronson did recently to try and liberate children from the concentration camps on the border.

I would fight when peaceful means of resistance are no longer an option. I know you believe this sentiment as well.

Proctopeo wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
So when, exactly, do you intend to fight against the increasing tyranny of the US government? Certainly, if you truly believe this sentiment, you'll've already begun to fight against it, just like 69-year-old Will Van Spronson did recently to try and liberate children from the concentration camps on the border.

Oof, venerating a terrorist. Not a good look for you, Torr, maybe find another hill?

What’s your opinion on John Brown?

Proctopeo wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
So when, exactly, do you intend to fight against the increasing tyranny of the US government? Certainly, if you truly believe this sentiment, you'll've already begun to fight against it, just like 69-year-old Will Van Spronson did recently to try and liberate children from the concentration camps on the border.

Oof, venerating a terrorist. Not a good look for you, Torr, maybe find another hill?

Ah, I see you're siding with the tyrants. Thanks for letting us know your beliefs in "libertarianism" are as strong as a wet paper towel.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
So when, exactly, do you intend to fight against the increasing tyranny of the US government? Certainly, if you truly believe this sentiment, you'll've already begun to fight against it, just like 69-year-old Will Van Spronson did recently to try and liberate children from the concentration camps on the border.

I would fight when peaceful means of resistance are no longer an option. I know you believe this sentiment as well.

So then what're you doing to peacefully resist the concentration camps that the US government has established, pray tell?

Torrocca wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Oof, venerating a terrorist. Not a good look for you, Torr, maybe find another hill?

Ah, I see you're siding with the tyrants. Thanks for letting us know your beliefs in "libertarianism" are as strong as a wet paper towel.

Northern Davincia wrote:I would fight when peaceful means of resistance are no longer an option. I know you believe this sentiment as well.

So then what're you doing to peacefully resist the concentration camps that the US government has established, pray tell?

I hope to do volunteer work with my church at the border later this year, if I can acquire the funds to go.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Ah, I see you're siding with the tyrants. Thanks for letting us know your beliefs in "libertarianism" are as strong as a wet paper towel.



So then what're you doing to peacefully resist the concentration camps that the US government has established, pray tell?

I hope to do volunteer work with my church at the border later this year, if I can acquire the funds to go.

Fair enough, then. Can't say I have any reason to disbelieve you, despite other things regarding your ideology and otherwise, so fair enough.

Kowani wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Oof, venerating a terrorist. Not a good look for you, Torr, maybe find another hill?

What’s your opinion on John Brown?

A controversial figure, but he's also been dead for well over a century, so I don't find it necessary to answer further.

Torrocca wrote:
Ah, I see you're siding with the tyrants. Thanks for letting us know your beliefs in "libertarianism" are as strong as a wet paper towel.

It's not just "firebomb-throwing lunatics" and "Mexican-hating tyrants", stop with this false dichotomy crap you're trying to pull. You can hate terrorism without liking who they're being terrorists against, it's pretty fucking simple.

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:I hope to do volunteer work with my church at the border later this year, if I can acquire the funds to go.

Fair enough, then. Can't say I have any reason to disbelieve you, despite other things regarding your ideology and otherwise, so fair enough.

Even I am troubled by the conditions at the detainment facilities. Every man has his limits.

Proctopeo wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Ah, I see you're siding with the tyrants. Thanks for letting us know your beliefs in "libertarianism" are as strong as a wet paper towel.

It's not just "firebomb-throwing lunatics" and "Mexican-hating tyrants", stop with this false dichotomy crap you're trying to pull. You can hate terrorism without liking who they're being terrorists against, it's pretty fucking simple.

Yeah, it is pretty fucking simple: you're choosing to side with tyranny. Thanks for taking the mask off for us.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Fair enough, then. Can't say I have any reason to disbelieve you, despite other things regarding your ideology and otherwise, so fair enough.

Even I am troubled by the conditions at the detainment facilities. Every man has his limits.

That's fair. At least you're willing to be true to the idea of resisting tyranny.

Proctopeo wrote:

Kowani wrote:What’s your opinion on John Brown?

A controversial figure, but he's also been dead for well over a century, so I don't find it necessary to answer further.

And he goes to dodge…and it doesn’t work!

Torrocca wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:It's not just "firebomb-throwing lunatics" and "Mexican-hating tyrants", stop with this false dichotomy crap you're trying to pull. You can hate terrorism without liking who they're being terrorists against, it's pretty fucking simple.

Yeah, it is pretty fucking simple: you're choosing to side with tyranny. Thanks for taking the mask off for us.

"support terrorism or you're siding with the tyrants!!!"
In the nicest terms possible, what, exactly, is wrong with you? Your dogma has reached fucking dangerous levels and it's really, really disgusting. Jesus Fucking Christ mate, get a grip.

Kowani wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:A controversial figure, but he's also been dead for well over a century, so I don't find it necessary to answer further.

And he goes to dodge…and it doesn’t work!

>TFW you refuse to say that a man who tried to liberate slaves was a good man

Either he's refusing to say anything because he knows it'd be entirely inconsistent to venerate Brown but villainize Spronson, or he's not calling John Brown good because he supports state-sanctioned tyranny, like, say, the shit at the border which he's currently supporting by calling a man who tried to free people from one of the corporate-run concentration camps a "terrorist".

It's really interesting, either way, that this is Proct's hill to die on.

Proctopeo wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Yeah, it is pretty fucking simple: you're choosing to side with tyranny. Thanks for taking the mask off for us.

"support terrorism or you're siding with the tyrants!!!"
In the nicest terms possible, what, exactly, is wrong with you? Your dogma has reached fucking dangerous levels and it's really, really disgusting. Jesus Fucking Christ mate, get a grip.

Nah, I don't need to get a grip. You've made your position on supporting state-sponsored tyranny abundantly clear. It was more than evident when you couldn't even formulate a proper opinion on John fucking Brown, a guy who openly rebelled against the state to free slaves.

But, like I said, thanks for taking your mask off and showing us how true your "libertarian" beliefs actually are.

Torrocca wrote:

Kowani wrote:And he goes to dodge…and it doesn’t work!

>TFW you refuse to say that a man who tried to liberate slaves was a good man

Either he's refusing to say anything because he knows it'd be entirely inconsistent to venerate Brown but villainize Spronson, or he's not calling John Brown good because he supports state-sanctioned tyranny, like, say, the shit at the border which he's currently supporting by calling a man who tried to free people from one of the corporate-run concentration camps a "terrorist".

It's really interesting, either way, that this is Proct's hill to die on.

Oops! Did I expose an inconsistency? My bad.

I don't understand why you would refuse to make your views known on John Brown. He was a violent terrorist and murderer. I don't think he should have been hung, but I much prefer Frederick Douglass thanks.

Torrocca wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:"support terrorism or you're siding with the tyrants!!!"
In the nicest terms possible, what, exactly, is wrong with you? Your dogma has reached fucking dangerous levels and it's really, really disgusting. Jesus Fucking Christ mate, get a grip.

Nah, I don't need to get a grip. You've made your position on supporting state-sponsored tyranny abundantly clear. It was more than evident when you couldn't even formulate a proper opinion on John fucking Brown, a guy who openly rebelled against the state to free slaves.

But, like I said, thanks for taking your mask off and showing us how true your "libertarian" beliefs actually are.

I believe Proct is trying to elaborate on the nuance of the situation. A peaceful resolution to the border crisis is far preferable to a violent one.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:I don't understand why you would refuse to make your views known on John Brown. He was a violent terrorist and murderer. I don't think he should have been hung, but I much prefer Frederick Douglass thanks.

Well, at least it’s consistent.

Torrocca wrote:

Kowani wrote:And he goes to dodge…and it doesn’t work!

>TFW you refuse to say that a man who tried to liberate slaves was a good man

Either he's refusing to say anything because he knows it'd be entirely inconsistent to venerate Brown but villainize Spronson, or he's not calling John Brown good because he supports state-sanctioned tyranny, like, say, the shit at the border which he's currently supporting by calling a man who tried to free people from one of the corporate-run concentration camps a "terrorist".

It's really interesting, either way, that this is Proct's hill to die on.

Says the person demanding that people support terrorism.
I refused to comment on Brown because it was an attempt to try and dig for hypocrisy and, well, I know that trick. In another context I would've easily given my stance on him, but here it's just a cheap trick.

Torrocca wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:"support terrorism or you're siding with the tyrants!!!"
In the nicest terms possible, what, exactly, is wrong with you? Your dogma has reached fucking dangerous levels and it's really, really disgusting. Jesus Fucking Christ mate, get a grip.

Nah, I don't need to get a grip. You've made your position on supporting state-sponsored tyranny abundantly clear. It was more than evident when you couldn't even formulate a proper opinion on John fucking Brown, a guy who openly rebelled against the state to free slaves.

But, like I said, thanks for taking your mask off and showing us how true your "libertarian" beliefs actually are.

You're digging for shit that isn't here, Stalinist. See above as to why I didn't comment on Brown, and why I will continue to refuse for the duration of this conversation. It is a riot to compare him to this lunatic though, as Brown was stable enough to bring the boys along for the ride.

It's also a riot to continue to insist that it is a dichotomy between "terrorism" and "tyranny" when there's clearly other possible options.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Nah, I don't need to get a grip. You've made your position on supporting state-sponsored tyranny abundantly clear. It was more than evident when you couldn't even formulate a proper opinion on John fucking Brown, a guy who openly rebelled against the state to free slaves.

But, like I said, thanks for taking your mask off and showing us how true your "libertarian" beliefs actually are.

I believe Proct is trying to elaborate on the nuance of the situation. A peaceful resolution to the border crisis is far preferable to a violent one.

NO PEACE ONLY FIREBOMBS
IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE PRO-TYRANNY AHFEHJFJGFJWGHFJWEG

Proctopeo wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
>TFW you refuse to say that a man who tried to liberate slaves was a good man

Either he's refusing to say anything because he knows it'd be entirely inconsistent to venerate Brown but villainize Spronson, or he's not calling John Brown good because he supports state-sanctioned tyranny, like, say, the shit at the border which he's currently supporting by calling a man who tried to free people from one of the corporate-run concentration camps a "terrorist".

It's really interesting, either way, that this is Proct's hill to die on.

Says the person demanding that people support terrorism.
I refused to comment on Brown because it was an attempt to try and dig for hypocrisy and, well, I know that trick. In another context I would've easily given my stance on him, but here it's just a cheap trick.

Oh, that’s plausible. No matter what stance you took, it would’ve been inherently hypocritical with your previous position. So, nice attempt at deflecting, but no dice. Try again.

Kowani wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Says the person demanding that people support terrorism.
I refused to comment on Brown because it was an attempt to try and dig for hypocrisy and, well, I know that trick. In another context I would've easily given my stance on him, but here it's just a cheap trick.

Oh, that’s plausible. No matter what stance you took, it would’ve been inherently hypocritical with your previous position. So, nice attempt at deflecting, but no dice. Try again.

I refuse to play your games on principle. Now, leave me alone with this shit. Specifically the "LOL WOT ABOT JON BRON LOLOLOL".

Kowani wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Says the person demanding that people support terrorism.
I refused to comment on Brown because it was an attempt to try and dig for hypocrisy and, well, I know that trick. In another context I would've easily given my stance on him, but here it's just a cheap trick.

Oh, that’s plausible. No matter what stance you took, it would’ve been inherently hypocritical with your previous position. So, nice attempt at deflecting, but no dice. Try again.

It would only have been hypocritical if slavery was morally equivalent to the detainment of illegal immigrants, albeit in poor conditions.

Proctopeo wrote:

Kowani wrote:Oh, that’s plausible. No matter what stance you took, it would’ve been inherently hypocritical with your previous position. So, nice attempt at deflecting, but no dice. Try again.

I refuse to play your games on principle. Now, leave me alone with this shit.

Games? A worldview must be internally consistent. Yours is not. I do suspect that you don’t like that fact overmuch.

Kowani wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:I refuse to play your games on principle. Now, leave me alone with this shit.

Games?

You know damn well what I mean.

A worldview must be internally consistent. Yours is not. I do suspect that you don’t like that fact overmuch.

Nah, I'm just sick of the cheap "dig for hypocrisy" tactic, and I'm trying to avoid using it myself.

Also, as ND said, the two things are not morally equivalent, nor are their actions.