Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
uziq
Member
+169|1803

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I don't think you are really upper middle class unless you have a network of family members with wealth and connections that you can use to help you out. A person who moved from out of poverty to the suburbs in one lifetime is still really precarious.
precisely. upper-middle denotes a lot of connections, influence, and culture. i'm not sure a person who GI bill'd out of college, probably for the first time out of anyone in their family, into a completely normal salaried middle-class job can claim to be 'upper middle'. hanging around with a bunch of high-school teachers isn't exactly mixing with the cultural elite, either.
Believe what you want man. I'm not going to name drop who I hang out with on the weekends.
https://static.oprah.com/2016/09/201609-omag-suze-best-financial-moves1-949x1356.jpg

her, apparently.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3709|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Oh, and I take a train to work and bike a mile and a half each way to my job site where I am overseeing construction of a LEED Gold certified building. Do I win a prize?
and no. new building is one of the least environmentally friendly activities we can do. i would argue that people in the construction industry, from architects down to lowly HVAC installers, are all far more culpable for climate change than almost any other industry save for fossil fuels. and why are you so proud of certificates? isn't that big government regulation or overweening bureaucrats? is there a greater self-con today than people in construction discussing 'sustainability'?

much like having a child. is this what your mantra of 'individual freedom and choice' leads to? because frankly it is not good enough. you're up there with the crazy inane white girls who instagram stories of their paper straws.
This is one of your most ignorant posts.

Old buildings leak like sieves. They're built around low efficiency steam boiler plants and inefficient-to-atrocious A/C systems. The largest energy usage in any building is in modifying the temperature of outside air. When you have a leaky building, or a building built around bringing in pure outside air, your energy costs are very high. They dwarf things like lighting and plug loads.

Newer buildings are built tight with inoperable windows. The HVAC systems, at least in NYC, are required to have energy recovery. Energy recovery means the exhaust air and the outside air are ducted through an air-to-air heat exchanger which brings the outside air closer to the indoor air temperature, say from 0 degrees F to 35 degrees F on the coldest day of the winter. This is a huge savings.

Then there are lighting controls, and hot water temperature setbacks, and building automation that takes advantage of occupied and unoccupied periods in the building to dial back energy consumption when the building is empty.

But yeah, old buildings are awesome.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+169|1803
there's more to construction than making a building energy-efficient, or putting in a good air conditioner.

how much energy is used in making steel? cement? glass? in shipping in stone from china for a facade because it looks similar to the locally sourced stone that is nigh impossible to source now? how much energy is used in construction activities? in logistics and site delivery?

my girlfriend is an architect for a top UK firm. the entire industry is full of people selling their projects to clients and councils as 'eco-friendly', whilst everyone knows ... the best thing for the environment ... is to stop new builds altogether. instead our current model is to put something up for 15-20 years and tear it all down again for a new development or a new spectacle. 'sustainability' is literally a shibboleth within the profession.

here's what a writer for architectural review said, rather memorably, on the topic:

"The very act of making a building is energy hungry and vastly wasteful even if the building is an eco-igloo of Fairtrade otter droppings, carbon-neutral Panda scraps, ethical vegan meat, organic yoghurt blocks, recycled slurry and and bio-degradable avocado face wipe...the only truly sustainable present is one in which we do not build..."
sorry but you do not win a prize because you work in construction on energy-efficient buildings. you are still putting up brand new buildings in an extremely energy-intensive process, lol.

i swear to god you were one of those people talking shit about electric cars, as well, because of the amount of energy invested in creating their batteries or some shit.

Last edited by uziq (2019-09-28 17:27:25)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3709|London, England

uziq wrote:

there's more to construction than making a building energy-efficient, or putting in a good air conditioner.

how much energy is used in making steel? cement? glass? in shipping in stone from china for a facade because it looks similar to the locally sourced stone that is nigh impossible to source now? how much energy is used in construction activities? in logistics and site delivery?

my girlfriend is an architect for a top UK firm. the entire industry is full of people selling their projects to clients and councils as 'eco-friendly', whilst everyone knows ... the best thing for the environment ... is to stop new builds altogether. instead our current model is to put something up for 15-20 years and tear it all down again for a new development or a new spectacle. 'sustainability' is literally a shibboleth within the profession.

here's what a writer for architectural review said, rather memorably, on the topic:

"The very act of making a building is energy hungry and vastly wasteful even if the building is an eco-igloo of Fairtrade otter droppings, carbon-neutral Panda scraps, ethical vegan meat, organic yoghurt blocks, recycled slurry and and bio-degradable avocado face wipe...the only truly sustainable present is one in which we do not build..."
sorry but you do not win a prize because you work in construction on energy-efficient buildings. you are still putting up brand new buildings in an extremely energy-intensive process, lol.

i swear to god you were one of those people talking shit about electric cars, as well, because of the amount of energy invested in creating their batteries or some shit.
Oh, I'm not taking away from that, it does use quite a bit of energy to bring in all the concrete, to make the glass etc. LEED requires that all materials be sourced within 500 miles of the building, so nothing from China, thankfully, but you're not wrong. If a building is built to last 100 years, the payback will be immense with fully upgraded systems. If a building is built to be torn down in 20 years, then no, obviously it is not a good thing. Old buildings require constant maintenance though, so some of the energy usage from building new is offset by that. Most concrete is not virgin anyway, just like most glass isn't. Much of it is made from recycled materials.

She's right though, it's called "greening". There are tons of hucksters selling useless energy saving devices and the like under the guise of conservation. It's not unique to construction though, it happens in every industry.

I used to do a lot of energy audits which required me to survey a building, calculate its energy usage and then recommend upgrades that could lower energy usage. Anything under a certain payback period was required to be implemented by the owner. I've calculated everything from lighting upgrades, to installing green roofs, to solar panels, you name it, I tried it. It was fun. Everything always came back to the amount of outside air introduced into a building. It's that simple. Lighting upgrades are pointless, everything is LED now and use barely any energy. Individual computers use very little. Servers use a lot.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Oh, I do worry about the national debt, a lot more than I worry about climate change.

I would honestly happily pay higher taxes if I knew it was going to be used by an honest government to balance the budget and pay down the debt. That's not how our government works though. If you give them money they'll spend it and maintain as much deficit as they can while tut tutting that government balance sheets are not like a household budget where everything must balance out and debt needs to be repaid. Hopefully by the time this house of cards tumbles I'll have enough wealth accumulated to go retire in Canada or something. At least they care about their budgets.

Jay wrote:

Fuck the country, fuck the planet, I'm gathering enough green to make sure I'm OK
Wow, pieces of paper are more important than climate change?

Who is the radical spouting apocalyptic rhetoric and lining up the taxpayer for unprecedented wealth transfer based on lies here Jay?

https://images.theconversation.com/files/293947/original/file-20190925-51401-ah8siu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C4%2C2667%2C1762&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip

https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/02/Colin-Powell-un-2003-1517923723.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&fit=crop&w=440&h=220

I'm not the sure world can take much more of the small government conservatism or fiscal responsibility the Republicans consistently deliver.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-09-29 19:24:28)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Oh, I'm not taking away from that, it does use quite a bit of energy to bring in all the concrete, to make the glass etc. LEED requires that all materials be sourced within 500 miles of the building, so nothing from China, thankfully, but you're not wrong. If a building is built to last 100 years, the payback will be immense with fully upgraded systems. If a building is built to be torn down in 20 years, then no, obviously it is not a good thing. Old buildings require constant maintenance though, so some of the energy usage from building new is offset by that. Most concrete is not virgin anyway, just like most glass isn't. Much of it is made from recycled materials.

She's right though, it's called "greening". There are tons of hucksters selling useless energy saving devices and the like under the guise of conservation. It's not unique to construction though, it happens in every industry.

I used to do a lot of energy audits which required me to survey a building, calculate its energy usage and then recommend upgrades that could lower energy usage. Anything under a certain payback period was required to be implemented by the owner. I've calculated everything from lighting upgrades, to installing green roofs, to solar panels, you name it, I tried it. It was fun. Everything always came back to the amount of outside air introduced into a building. It's that simple. Lighting upgrades are pointless, everything is LED now and use barely any energy. Individual computers use very little. Servers use a lot.
Somehow Jay is right on some of this. Buildings, especially old ones, typically use more energy in their use than during construction. It can make sense to tear down an old one put put up a new one, although often its so an architect can win an award.

Half the problem is people not tolerating variation. When old buildings were put up they had some heating and no cooling, people accepted seasonal variation.
Fitting megawatt HVAC systems is madness and now people go nuts if the indoor temperature is 0.1C off 20.6C. In parts it why they're so fat, and get diabetes, their diabetic system is never exercised.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

I don't fear for my kids. In fact, I'm planning to have a third next year. Hoping for a girl this time.
Good thinking, you'll need some chattels to sell when we're into Mad Max civilisation and white girls command top dollar.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+169|1803
https://time.com/5685528/koch-industrie … d=tcoshare

pretty timely article considering what we've just been talking about.

but i guess the international left need to be kept at bay somehow. what was that jay was saying about my 'conspiracy-lite' mentioning of the Kochs?

Consider the oil refining business, which has been a cash cow for Koch Industries since 1969, just two years after Charles Koch took over the family company following his father’s death. Charles Koch was just in his early 30s at the time, but he made a brilliant and bold move, purchasing an oil refinery outside Saint Paul, Minnesota. The refinery was super-profitable thanks to a bottleneck in the U.S. energy system: the refinery used crude oil from the tar sands of Canada to be refined into gasoline later sold to the upper Midwest. The crude oil was extraordinarily cheap because it contained a lot of sulfur and not many refineries could process it. But Koch sold its refined gas into markets where gasoline supplies were very tight and prices were high.

Why didn’t some competitor open up a refinery next to Koch’s to seize this opportunity? It turns out that no one has built a new oil refinery anywhere in the United States since 1977. The reason is surprising: the Clean Air Act regulations. When the law was drastically expanded in 1970, it imposed pollution standards on new refineries. But it “grandfathered” in the existing refineries with the idea that they would eventually break down and be replaced with new facilities. That never happened. The legacy oil refiners, including Koch, exploited arcane sections of the law that allowed them to expand their old facilities while avoiding the newer clean-air standards. This gave them an insurmountable advantage over any potential new competitor. The absence of new refineries to stoke competition and drive down prices meant that Americans paid higher prices for gasoline. Today the industry is dominated by entrenched players who run aged facilities at near-full capacity, reaping profits that are among the highest in the world. In this industry and others, the big gains go to companies that can hire lawyers and lobbyists to help game the rules, and then hire even more lawyers when the government tries to punish them for breaking the law (as happened to Koch and other refiners in the late 1990s when it became clear they were manipulating Clean Air regulations).

Last edited by uziq (2019-09-29 13:07:24)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX
The real threat is Marxists and their radical agenda.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX
So whats the world doing about the Uighur Holocaust?

China’s dystopian oppression of its Uighur ethnic minority group continues to shock the world. So why isn’t anyone doing anything about it?

Satellite photos have exposed the rapid construction of a vast network of prison-like facilities across China’s northwestern province of Xinjiang.

The West calls them internment camps.

China calls them vocational education facilities.

So, what’s in a name? When it comes to the Uighur population at the heart of the project, it’s a matter of life or death.

Beijing’s assertion that these are benevolent training facilities is crumbling in the face of photos and footage of high-walled, barbed-wire covered, security-tower festooned facilities.

Not to mention recent footage showing 400 bound and blindfolded Uighur prisoners being loaded into railway carts.

The horror doesn’t end there. The UN Human Rights council has been told China is killing religious and ethnic minorities and harvesting their organs.

The China Tribunal, which heard evidence from human rights investigators, medical experts and witnesses, concluded there was clear evidence the crime was taking place.

“Forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience, including the religious and ethnic minorities of Falun Gong and Uighurs, has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale” senior lawyer Hamid Sabi told the UN.

He said the practice involved hundreds of thousands of victims and the “crimes against humanity” had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr Sabi described the practice as one of the worst “mass atrocities” of this century.

The tribunal said detainees were “killed to order... cut open while still alive for their kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, cornea and skin to be removed and turned into commodities for sale”.

China has repeatedly denied unethically transplanting organs and said it stopped using organs from executed prisoners in 2015.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/wor … d01d07df29
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+169|1803

Dilbert_X wrote:

The real threat is Marxists and their radical agenda.
i can't tell if you're serious or satirical, but to be fair the reason marxists are so prominent and pointed in their critique is because its an interpretive-dialectical tradition that has been critiquing capitalism for the better part of 200 years. of course they have the readymade answers to everything and propose 'solving' the climate crisis by overcoming capitalism -- that's the line of argument they've been pursuing since the second industrial revolution.

marxism is a useful framework for interpreting the world. it doesn't have a claim to absolute truth, but it is a hegelian toolkit (surprised jay isn't a huge fan tbh). the entire materialist tradition of analysing relations between classes, workers and bosses, masters and slaves, etc. is a net bonus to our human wisdom. works of political economy like the 18th brumaire are small, revelatory masterpieces, really. it opened up a whole new way of thinking critically about the world.

as for marxists having a concrete political agenda that is practicable in the west, it is absolute poppycock. the chances of revolutionary marxism ever taking hold again in the united states or western europe are almost zero to none. 'capitalism won' and 30 years of neoliberalism have well and truly put it to bed. people like right-winger/trumpist jay just like to invoke the word as a scare tactic to hammer through their own right-wing agendas. a familiar technique from that end of the spectrum ... AOC is hardly a marxist firebrand trying to bring down the state.

Last edited by uziq (2019-09-30 01:44:36)

uziq
Member
+169|1803
what's happening to the Uighurs is a holocaust, without doubt, and their culture is being systematically exterminated. it isn't about gas chambers and smoking chimneys, but there is a definite programme to eradicate their language, customs, culture, and religion (most obviously) from china forever.

as with the falun gong, who are basically harvested for their organs and treated as second-class citizens, the world will watch on and do nothing.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

https://time.com/5685528/koch-industries-corporate-power/?xid=tcoshare

pretty timely article considering what we've just been talking about.

but i guess the international left need to be kept at bay somehow. what was that jay was saying about my 'conspiracy-lite' mentioning of the Kochs?
Also, arch-libertarians and free-marketeers leveraging government regulation to create a monopoly?

Seems improbable as I thought ideology was more important than anything to these people.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+169|1803
it is not ideologically inconsistent to them to exploit what state powers exist, so long as it enriches them personally.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Because you embrace mass bureaucracy and accept government involvement in your life without remark. The vast majority of us do not.
Ah but you do
Every political issue in America boils down to statism vs freedom.
If you say so. Lets look at 'statism vs freedom' in your area of expertise - building services.

The 'freedom' option:

Someone decides to put up a building. Embracing libertarianism and the right for everyone to make their own choices they don't install an HVAC system, allowing each occupant to install their own system just as they like it.

Bob in cubicle 4F fits an electric heater because he likes to be warm year round
Sharon in 3A installs a refrigerative cooling system as she's fat and can't take heat
Pablo in 2D is from south america and finds dry air dries his skin so he installs a humidifier
Olaf in 7G is from northern europe and likes lots of fresh air so he has his window wide open all year and enjoys the breeze across his desk
Jafari in 3B is descended from saharan africans and installs a dehumidiifier
Ken in 5E is ..... a wanker.  Ken has shares in a coal company. Every Friday he opens all the windows cranks all the systems up to the max and lets them run all weekend.

Could you do the efficiency and running cost per square foot calculation for that scenario? Maybe you could but it would be a waste of time because 'obviously' no-one in their right mind would consider for a second creating a system like that.

The 'statist' option:

The building manager is tasked with defining the system parameters
A contractor designs and installs the system according to standard set down by government
The windows are all sealed shut and the building manager controls the system to suit everyone as far as is practicable, beyond that everyone has to compromise and accept not everyone can have what they want
Ken gets a warning over messing with the settings and is then fucking fired

So you see, in this, and in every other aspect of your life, you're very happy with the 'statist' solution. Its what you want, its what works best for you now, has worked well for you your whole life and is 'obviously' the right answer.

And yet when it comes to systems you have no knowledge or experience of you keep putting forward the 'freedom' solution, because you've read Ayn Rand and are now reading National Review articles written by 'trained singers'.

This all just makes you look like a dumbass and a hypocrite.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

it is not ideologically inconsistent to them to exploit what state powers exist, so long as it enriches them personally.
Instead of creating advantage for themselves you'd think they'd work to overturn the legislation for everyone, to create an environment of perfect competition.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-09-30 02:54:22)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Larssen
Post limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+4|238

uziq wrote:

what's happening to the Uighurs is a holocaust, without doubt, and their culture is being systematically exterminated. it isn't about gas chambers and smoking chimneys, but there is a definite programme to eradicate their language, customs, culture, and religion (most obviously) from china forever.

as with the falun gong, who are basically harvested for their organs and treated as second-class citizens, the world will watch on and do nothing.
I would argue that China is only succeeding in creating the necessary conditions for much more conflict in the future. The situation in Xinjiang and Tibet are untenable, Inner Mongolia unstable. Actually erasing a culture is 'hard work' and I don't see them succeeding in that aim with the methods they're using.

What you see instead is a pile up of grievances. The indigenous people in these regions are systematically marginalised and as a result the regions are very unlikely to become stable any time soon. Not much would be needed for larger scale protests and/or more violence. The problem is compounded by the fact that Chinese law does argue for the equality of ethnic minorities and the preservation of their identities. No doubt there will be groups in the educated elite, especially those of minority origin, who will have trouble reconciling that fact with the reality of government policies.

All in all there's more than 20 million people belonging to marginalised ethnic groups, that's a pretty big population to try and subdue. You're right that the world will 'stand by and watch', but at the same time I don't think all of those people need the rest of the world to, in time, fight for an equal place in Chinese society.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-09-30 03:00:20)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX
China will crush them like bugs. Mao killed 15 million don't forget.

Uighur men will exist solely to provide organs for party officials
Uighur women will exist solely to provide human fetuses for banquets for party officials

There aren't going to be any uprisings, the most we'll know about it is we'll see a trench visible from space, them mysteriously filled in.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Larssen
Post limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+4|238
No, I don't see that as likely. Add Hong Kong to my above list by the way. The treatment of minorities is an increasingly problematic issue for the Chinese state. If the HK protests teach us anything it's that the Chinese state eschews overly violent means of dealing with minority issues. Some may believe this is because they would fear international repercussions, I'd argue that the Tiananmen protests and other instances of extremely bloody repression resulted in quite some soul-searching in the party apparatus. There's a reason why that piece of history isn't taught or noted in any Chinese textbook and censored from the internet as much as possible: the state is ashamed of what happened. They also fear what might happen if the general public knew that piece of history more accurately. The state does not see itself as a supressor, it was built on the notion that it was a liberator. While officials will, if questioned about it, argue that Tiananmen was necessary in the context of the time, their answer also indicates that they believe they've now changed.

It's a similar moral conondrum the Soviet Union found itself in during the 70s and 80s and which the colonial empires ultimately experienced as well. Part of the reason for the collapse of either was a shifting moral conscience and the inability of the state elite to reconcile the ideals and logic of its governance with the repression of their own or other peoples. Additionally, the elite in minority groups who were educated in the institutions that also produced future government officials didn't all fall in line - many ended up organising protests and resistance among their own peoples upon return.

The Chinese situation resembles this and I wouldn't be surprised if the issue only becomes ever greater in the next decades.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-09-30 03:31:17)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3709|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Because you embrace mass bureaucracy and accept government involvement in your life without remark. The vast majority of us do not.
Ah but you do
Every political issue in America boils down to statism vs freedom.
If you say so. Lets look at 'statism vs freedom' in your area of expertise - building services.

The 'freedom' option:

Someone decides to put up a building. Embracing libertarianism and the right for everyone to make their own choices they don't install an HVAC system, allowing each occupant to install their own system just as they like it.

Bob in cubicle 4F fits an electric heater because he likes to be warm year round
Sharon in 3A installs a refrigerative cooling system as she's fat and can't take heat
Pablo in 2D is from south america and finds dry air dries his skin so he installs a humidifier
Olaf in 7G is from northern europe and likes lots of fresh air so he has his window wide open all year and enjoys the breeze across his desk
Jafari in 3B is descended from saharan africans and installs a dehumidiifier
Ken in 5E is ..... a wanker.  Ken has shares in a coal company. Every Friday he opens all the windows cranks all the systems up to the max and lets them run all weekend.

Could you do the efficiency and running cost per square foot calculation for that scenario? Maybe you could but it would be a waste of time because 'obviously' no-one in their right mind would consider for a second creating a system like that.

The 'statist' option:

The building manager is tasked with defining the system parameters
A contractor designs and installs the system according to standard set down by government
The windows are all sealed shut and the building manager controls the system to suit everyone as far as is practicable, beyond that everyone has to compromise and accept not everyone can have what they want
Ken gets a warning over messing with the settings and is then fucking fired

So you see, in this, and in every other aspect of your life, you're very happy with the 'statist' solution. Its what you want, its what works best for you now, has worked well for you your whole life and is 'obviously' the right answer.

And yet when it comes to systems you have no knowledge or experience of you keep putting forward the 'freedom' solution, because you've read Ayn Rand and are now reading National Review articles written by 'trained singers'.

This all just makes you look like a dumbass and a hypocrite.
After I've designed or built a building I don't care what the occupants do. None of the above scenarios would have any impact on my personal life. Their creativity is limited only by the size of the electrical service in the building. More power to them. My job is to design them the bare minimum functionality to meet basic life needs and then I wash my hands of it. Who has the time or the inclination to want to micromanage everyone else's life? I certainly don't.

You expect the worst from humanity and, if you could, would rule as what you would describe as a benign dictatorship where you know best and will rule in other people's interests. I don't possess your god complex. Unless someone is fucking up my day on a personal level, I couldn't care less what they do. But you do. If you were in my seat right now you would be running up to the train conductor and asking him to remove the woman across from me with her bare feet up on the seat.

Your constant sense of indignation and effrontery by the actions of others must make your existence very tiring. I certainly doubt that I'm the first person to tell you to let go and lighten up. The biggest problem that you fail to see is that the power you seek over others will never be yours. You will consistently vote to empower others who share your view but who will exercise that power over you. You will be even less in control than you are now. Your opinion will matter even less. No one in political power is going to consult with dilbert_x the machine parts designer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX
I wouldn't expect anyone to 'consult with me', or you, or anyone else. Not sure why you'd think that, or that govt is out to 'micromanage everyone else's life' - that sounds like paranoia or some sort of Daddy issue.

"power over you" What are you talking about exactly? Aren't you the one who volunteered for the Army? You chose to give total power over you to the government and to have every minute of every day micromanaged. You did make the choice to run away when you came under fire, so well done bravely exercising your freedom there.

Your babbling about Libertarianism and statism vs 'freedom' is as moronic as it is hypocritical.

Next time you're out driving I suggest you try exercising your freedom by sailing through some red lights. I mean, why should the government tell people  when they can drive and when they can't?

With luck a semi-trailer will show you the error in your thinking.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-09-30 06:33:48)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
SuperJail Warden
Member
+196|2070
Freedom in America means being able to carry a .45 semiautomatic pistol with you into Walmart so that you don't feel intimidated by the black people grocery shopping in your neighborhood since you are fat and cannot protect yourself.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX
Well, the .45 semiautomatic pistol was invented to enable white people to shoot drugged-up black people.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,748|5122|USA

At that point I feel like it's mostly for the feeling of power. In some cases a compromise for people who wanted a Desert Eagle but decided they were too expensive. .45 semi, way too heavy for practical concealed carry. And still not enough firepower to deal with 30-50 feral hogs.
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+556|5064|Purplicious Wisconsin

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well, the .45 semiautomatic pistol was invented to enable white people to shoot drugged-up black people.
Actually to shoot drugged-up Filipino's. Considering that it was the Filipino-American War that sparked the desire for "more stopping power" and seeing as at the time, increasing stopping power meant increasing caliber.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard