gnaritas

40 ms·

181.
by gnaritas 9y ago
We call what the founders described a representative democracy, whether they used the word or not isn't relevant as what they meant by democracy is more aptly called direct democracy today. You are objecting to the use of a term becau
182.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Not remotely enough money to take on Facebook. They'd simply squash you. Google couldn't do it and they have far deeper pockets.
183.
by gnaritas 9y ago
This is not a right wing issue, it's an authoritarian vs libertarian issue. Plenty of people on every side don't trust the government and don't want to give it more power.
184.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Your position makes sense if you trust your government, many of us don't trust ours thus his position.
185.
by gnaritas 9y ago
No it's more than that; perhaps you haven't discussed with some people, but a great many people actually do believe fish are not animals. It's not mere semantics, they don't actually consider them animals at all, as if
186.
by gnaritas 9y ago
True, but it's just stupid, fish are animals.
187.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Sounds like a bug in Spanish (chill, I'm Spanish). However, fish is also animal flesh so that wouldn't have made the statement any better. Fish are animals. Fish muscles are meat in the same way any other meat is meat. Downvoted
188.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Not all the countries are pure meat eaters... lmao... fish is meat.
189.
by gnaritas 9y ago
If China could effectively ban bitcoin, they'd have done so long ago; they don't because they can't enforce it and they know it and it's better to look like you don't care that to show that you don't have the p
190.
by gnaritas 9y ago
That's crypto's primary use case already.
191.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Ah yes, you can't defend your position so you simply declare mine sophomoric and run away. I'll take that as a concession, have a nice day.
192.
by gnaritas 9y ago
What a warped view to interpret my call for a fair system where everyone's vote is equal into creating a "permanently disenfranchised and forgotten hinterland". You're either not listening at all, or you're just to
193.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Perhaps you forgot the question, and your answer >> What rights are being trampled on here? > Clearly, it's the rights of small communities, with significant material and cultural differences from large cities, to have a degre
194.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Please stop talking about land and talk about people. Urban voters are the ones who deserve empathy, they're the ones being put upon by rural voters. You talk as if the rural voters are the victims here, they are not, they are the mino
195.
by gnaritas 9y ago
That's how I'm characterizing the current system, currently a rural vote is worth way more than an urban vote; urban voters are currently disenfranchised. We have Trump because the system discriminates against urban voters, i.e.
196.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Tyranny of the majority if vastly preferable to tyranny of the minority which is what generally what anyone claiming "tyranny of the majority" is actually trying to promote. I think all votes should count equally... do you not ag
197.
by gnaritas 9y ago
No, I'm advocating for treating all people equally rather than favoring rural people as worth more than urban ones. You're asking for rural people to be valued more.
198.
by gnaritas 9y ago
You mean it favors people over land, good.
199.
by gnaritas 9y ago
In the old days, not anymore, CPU's are too slow to compete with ASIC's for mining.
200.
by gnaritas 9y ago
And that's exactly what won't work; there isn't a single set of decision criteria that can replace consensus and reason. People aren't algorithms, you can't simplify their values and judgement into decision criteri
201.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> My claim is that the OP, by haggling about definitions, is trying to negotiate the meaning of the word. Oh, ok, yes he is and that's the problem, he's wrong. It's a stupid semantic debate where he's arguing over a
202.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> then what is absurd about trying to negotiate the terms of that contract? Nothing, that's rather the point I'm making, rights are not inherent, they are social agreements and are thus always up for renegotiation. You are agre
203.
by gnaritas 9y ago
It's not remotely new. > A right used to mean something that was passed to you by 'your creator' because of your humanity. No, words don't work that way. The word has always meant both of those things, some people li
204.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? Things we "agr
205.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> My definition above is just the original one. And outdated and not accepted one. Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn'
206.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. That's simply just an absurd and frankly silly point. Stop arguing about what words should mean and pay attention to the message
207.
by gnaritas 9y ago
You're just being pedantic about what the word right should mean; it's silly. Rights are whatever society agrees them to be, that's it. It's an ever changing mutable list of what people agree to respect, nothing more an
208.
by gnaritas 9y ago
They are not browsing, they actively hunt game, corral them, and eat them. They are quite literally predators in the behavioral sense.
209.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Of course it's not what Obamacare does, you can't go from a private insurance market to a single payer government system in one single step. Obamacare is the transition between the two. > Obamacare requires private insurance t
210.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Obamacare is not a terrible idea, it's a transitional idea as we're already doing this with insurance; it's an evolution of the system in the right direction, it's not a final solution. Add a national exchange, offer a

More ›