TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

nobody25864 Archive

View 3 posts and 94 comments by nobody25864 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I'm not really a good test dummy. I graduated a degree in philosophy with honors. I'm not wikipedia level. Yet you still haven't passed the test yet. Although even if you did, I guess now you'd have to go the extra mile in proving you could understand all that with a wikipedia level understanding of Aristotle. For what, some terms? You could replace study of them with a glossary and do contemporary philosophy just fine. I refuse to believe that someone could have gotten a philosophy degree with …
/r/TheRedPill22/06/15 05:20 AM
2

You can trace the historical lineage if you want to but it's not especially necessary. A wikipedia's worth of knowledge about Aristotle is all that's really necessary to understand most analytic philosophy. Uh huh. Okay, I was reading some Thomas Aquinas recently, and he was debating the question of whether God is contained in a genus. With your Wikipedia level understanding of Aristotle, please explain to me what you think the following means. A thing can be in a genus in two ways; either absol…
/r/TheRedPill22/06/15 04:03 AM
2

Harry Potter's a work of fiction, not an inquiry on what's true. Yes, I'm well aware. But in both cases, knowledge of what was said in the past is needed to make sense of where we are now. I didn't say it was a standard of embarrassment. I said it was a standard of acclaim. An acclaim that you think philosophy's failure to meet lets you judge it an an embarrassment. Tomato, tomahto. I never said I do. I said the question was impossible and therefore no answer can be given. Which itself is one of…
/r/TheRedPill22/06/15 03:17 AM
2

You were shocked that someone would have you learn Plato and Aristotle not merely as a historical interest Nope, never said that. I said that I agreed with my professor's judgment but that I still find it bizarre that this kind of thing can happen. You: "When I was in my undergrad studying ethics, you know who the first guys I had to read were? Plato and Aristotle. We weren't reading him for history either. We were reading him because the philosophy professors in my department considered their w…
/r/TheRedPill22/06/15 02:35 AM
2

People don't look at Plato and Aristotle because everyone thinks they got everything perfect forever. I didn't say they did. You were shocked that someone would have you learn Plato and Aristotle not merely as a historical interest but when discussing serious philosophy and constantly point to people taking them seriously as evidence that there can't possibly be any real answers. You also constantly point to the need to study them as a sign that nothing has progressed since their day. So yes, yo…
/r/TheRedPill22/06/15 01:46 AM
1

When I was in my undergrad studying ethics, you know who the first guys I had to read were? Plato and Aristotle. We weren't reading him for history either. We were reading him because the philosophy professors in my department considered their work to be relevant, good, solid philosophy worthy of actual consideration and discussion. Any decent philosophy course can and will start you there. You're misunderstanding the reason though. People don't look at Plato and Aristotle because everyone think…
/r/TheRedPill21/06/15 10:21 AM
1

The thing I don't get is you asserting that I'm wrong. No, I think I get that just fine.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 11:59 PM
1

If those rights were actually removed, then nothing that happened to the American citizens of Japanese heritage was wrong. It's wrong precisely because they did have those rights. You're confusing a violation of rights with not having rights at all. If a thief steals your car, you still have legal ownership rights over the car. It's still your property. The thief is simply violating your rights. If you actually lost the right to the car, the "thief" hasn't stolen from anyone. He just homesteaded…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 11:41 PM
1

Those are some nice assertions you have there. The idea of natural rights has actually had plenty of places among conversation between adults, and has actually been discussed since ancient Rome when this position has been argued by Cicero, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and plenty of others. As the Declaration of Independence says, governments are established to defend rights, rights aren't established to defend governments. To quote Frederic Bastiat: "Life, liberty, and property do …
/r/MensRights19/07/14 01:32 PM
1

You're one of the few people that I find have consistently rational arguments on most subjects. That's me all right. Maybe I'm just mentally slow, but I've self-identified as a minarchist for much longer than the required 6 months. ;) When I originally heard that joke, it was two years, not six months. And that actually was about the time it took me to change over too, honestly. I have no problem with an 'effective' monopoly. A private entity that provides very good service at a reasonable rate …
/r/MensRights18/07/14 11:05 PM
1

So then what you're saying is: If someone is murdered, then obviously a crime was committed unless the person stated in his will that the killer would be forgiven, and then no crime was committed? Yeah, unless we have reason to suspect he was forgiven or that the victim wouldn't want anyone to prosecute, then I'd say it's pretty safe to assume that they'd want justice. But what if the next of kin forgives the killer with no clear statement of forgiveness in the will. Was there still a crime? The…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 09:43 PM
1

In your exception then, who is the victim's advocate? If the murdered homeless person or the raped child has no family or other "wronged" party, then who should be designated as their advocate? Anyone could be. I agree with you here. If a victim is not under duress and is mentally capable of making such a decision, then no other party should be able to punish or exact retribution on behalf of the victim. Awesome! Glad to hear it. Who do you think should be that third-party neutral advocate? I un…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 09:26 PM
1

You have some good points, but the essential question is, who will stand in for the victim if they are unable or unwilling (due to duress or instability) to assert their own individual rights? I appreciate that! I believe I explicitly allowed for cases of duress or mental instability, and that I was even the first one to bring that up. Act according to your best judgment there, but if the person is no longer under duress or mentally unstable and decides to forgive the acts of the other person, b…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 02:32 PM
1

Which contradicts what you said about wills. No it doesn't. That they'd want their murder investigated is a natural assumption unless we have reason to think the contrary. Silence is not forgiveness. Being so sacred for your safety/life that you don't file a police report doesn't mean that you forgive the person. Well it's a good thing I said forgiveness then. It's not, and I never said it was. Ah, well that's all well and good then. And what if you're murdered? It's all fine and dandy for petty…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 04:38 AM
1

If you're just going to arbitrarily assign who the victim is/isn't when it's convenient, then you need to concede. Don't confuse trying to make a best estimate with arbitrariness. Then the logical conclusion is to assume no forgiveness unless it was expressly given. Yup. You're trying to say that a victim of domestic violence who doesn't press charges is the same as a professional boxer, thus no crime was committed. I never said anything of the sort. I say people can choose to forgive others, an…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 03:25 AM
1

Yeah, I was hoping for better...
/r/MensRights18/07/14 03:02 AM
2

Why would the murderer (next of kin) be the one who most strongly seeks justice? Nothing means they necessarily have to, but nothing says anyone has to look into murders at all! We the living do it because we choose to. Or, wait, are you saying the next of kin is the murderer? Then yeah, probably they wouldn't but someone else could. Next of kin are usually just interested in getting justice for loved ones is all I'm saying. And if the person is dead, how would you know they forgave them? Withou…
/r/MensRights18/07/14 01:56 AM
0

So what happens if the next of kin are the murderers? From where can you have justice? They can and probably will be the ones who most strongly try and get justice for their loved one. But if the original victim decided to forgive them, then that would trump any claim they have. Just because someone wasn't prosecuted, doesn't mean they're not guilty. I think you're taking the "innocent until proven guilty" statement entirely out of context. That statement/mentality applies only to someone when t…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 11:41 AM
1

So if a crime is committed against nobody25864, it is up to me or anyone else to go around "and find out what the wish of the victim was or best guess at what it would have been." It's my job to find out what YOUR wish was? Are you retarded? If anyone plans on prosecuting, then yes. Assuming you'd want prosecution is generally a reasonable assumption. If the victim is DEAD, you dumb cockroach, how are they supposed to demand or not demand the death sentence. You worthless waste of sperm. A will,…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 03:40 AM
0

Who is the "you", you dumb fuck. Well aren't you a fun one. And that you is referring to you, another_trader. The original "you" applied to anyone. Who is "they"? The victim. Come on, I can see how you could confuse the first one, but this one's pretty obvious. Are you retarded? So you have been murdered. According to YOU, only YOU can bring charges against the murderer. But you are dead and therefore can't bring any murder charges or make any decisions and therefore the murderer can't be charge…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 02:58 AM
-1

What about murder victims. They are not around to charge the victim. Then you must do your best to try and find out what the wish of the victim was or best guess at what it would have been. If, for example, the victim were a well known pacifist, odds are they wouldn't demand the death sentence against their killer. The victim is the one who's had their rights violated, not the state. The state has no more place in making this decision than any other random person. All crimes might as well be cri…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 01:55 AM
0

The person could be considered a high risk to reoffend. They haven't offended a first time. What about people who died? Who makes the decisions for them? If the next of kin does, how do we know that they're acting in good faith? Assuming this is murder, without a will or some other explicit instruction, you have to use common sense and try to best guess the will of the victim. Usually this will mean things falling to the next of kin, but that's presumably because they know best. If this is a the…
/r/MensRights16/07/14 09:25 PM
1

To be fair, if we always let the victim choose whether or not to press charges, we may also have issues with the victim not choosing to press charges when they probably should. As is their right. There isn't a matter of "letting" people do it. It's not our decision. Only the victim has a claim against the person, so only they have the decision. If they want to forgive the other person, that's their right to as well. Some argument could be made if the person is being extorted to stay silent, but …
/r/MensRights16/07/14 08:55 PM
1

Interesting, thanks for the link!
/r/MensRights16/07/14 05:19 PM
7

I think the decision to legally forgive others should be up to the victim.
/r/MensRights16/07/14 05:18 PM
6

I didn't pick the title.
/r/MensRights16/07/14 02:40 PM
26

Yeah, and that makes absolutely no sense. Crimes are against victims.
/r/MensRights16/07/14 02:40 PM
87

The girl will not be charged with anything because prosecutors fear it could stop others from reporting sexual assaults. First off, why is the decision to press charges here up to the state and not to the victim? Secondly, if perjury is illegal (and last I checked it still is), why aren't they duty bound to prosecute it given that the decision is up to them instead of the victim? And thirdly, what the hell kind of reasoning is that?
/r/MensRights16/07/14 02:19 PM
1

At least the Austrians got it right. They show value as being ordinal, saying that action shows someone prefers A to B with no pretended measurement, rather than trying to make up some unit of "utils" and then saying "A is worth 10 utils while B is only worth 3.7 utils".
/r/MensRights16/03/14 02:43 PM
7

"Scientists" want to shoehorn calculus into everything, even if it has no place, so they make up imaginary units because fuck it, if it doesn't look like physics then how will people know it's sciencey? They did the same thing to economics.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 05:15 AM
1

Perhaps. I was simply saying that I have ho problem with assumptions being made. I was not making a statement on which assumptions I think are justified or not. Regardless, if officers were held personally accountable to the law the same way everyone else in society is, then I think this would be less of a problem, and if they are going to make assumptions they are going to want to make sure they are on the most accurate statistics around so as to not be found guilty.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 05:04 PM
-10

I think certain assumptions can be made when action is called for in a situation and there is little time to think. If men are usually the abusive ones in a relationship, and some abuse is seen, then it's not necessarily wrong to act to the defense of one against another, just as if I saw a man and a woman fighting over a purse, I'd assume the man was trying to steal the woman's purse. However, you are absolutely right that there needs to be change here. If a wrong assumption was made, this shou…
/r/MensRights28/02/14 05:46 PM
1

Thanks, it is a bit subtle :D
/r/MensRights20/12/13 04:23 AM
3

I've always wondered why solipsism isn't more popular.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 10:58 PM
2

That's what happens when no one calls you out on your faults and mistakes. It's very refreshing to see more people just getting annoyed by feminism now and calling them out on it.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 03:05 PM
3

Glad you liked it! Rothbard always seems to speak with great clarity and insight.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 04:05 AM
1

Pro-tip: People on 4chan don't actually believe what they right. It's like some kid making a swastika in minecraft. The kid doesn't do it because he actually accepts the nazi ideology, he does it because "durr hurr, heil hitler!"
/r/MensRights19/09/13 04:25 AM
1

No, it's discriminatory. That's very different, especially when you're being asked "what type of person are you attracted to", which is specifically asking you to discriminate certain features about people that you like. If I say "I prefer brunettes to blonds", that's a discriminatory statement. But no one supposes that I believe that brunettes are the master race while blonds are sub-human. The same can apply here. Now if I was saying "I'm not attracted to blonds because blonds should stick to …
/r/MensRights19/09/13 04:21 AM
1

He shouldn't have to. Despite common misconceptions, it's the state's job to bring about charges... Just because they do it doesn't mean it's their job. If the victim doesn't want to press charges, then no charges should be pressed. Only the victim has a right to make this decision, and if they don't want to then that's that. If Jean Valjean steals a bishop's silverware, and the bishop decides he wants him to be allowed to take the silverware and the candlesticks along with it, the state has no …
/r/MensRights19/09/13 03:30 AM
1

Oh my God, that was beautiful.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 04:35 AM
1

How to best summarize your beliefs… That's been my primary goal here, and I would like to say it’s been great fun. Your beliefs are full of contradictions, mostly due to your poor control and understanding of the English language. You don’t consistently use the definition of words, making discussing anything with you near impossible because anyone who would even attempt to do so would have to learn your… unique jargon. You openly flaunt how you redefine words because there is no set definition t…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 11:52 AM
1

And what exactly have you posted to prove you views then? Every time I post a source that explains what the LTV means, you claim it's a big conspiracy by the capitalists to keep the LTV down! You don't even explain why the interpretation is wrong, you just assert that it's insane, and add in something about commodities as if that changed anything, which even you had the sense not to expand on.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 10:26 AM
1

Incorrect. You are just interpreting his words in an insane way. Yes, insane ways that just so happen to match up with what he says, and all other sources explaining what the LTV is. So insane. Instead, you've taken quotes blatantly out of context, & interpreted them like a crazy person on Fox News would. Blatantly out of context as in not including a worthless bit of information from the previous sentence where he was talking about commodities. Again, it doesn't matter even if he was talking ab…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 10:17 AM
1

Except that those aren't the basics of the LTV. You're trying to change the LTV into doing everything except explaining the value of a good. You're the one who has no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 10:05 AM
1

I love how you just jam the sentence from the previous paragraph in there. But, again, it doesn't matter if he's talking about commodities or all objects, because he is saying that value is intrinsic. Regardless of whether he's talking about commodities or everything, he says the price of something is set by the cost of a man to acquire it. No matter how you look at it, he's saying the value is intrinsic, and that's just simply wrong. And again, if you find a problem with his version of the LTV,…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 10:03 AM
1

I wasn't using that definition. What definition, you just quoted "subjective". And if you weren't talking about in in terms of the what the subjective theory of value means, then you were pointlessly talking about it since that's what it means in the economic sense. Everything else was equally pointless. Except that, again, it shows you don't understand what the LToV is. The LToV is trying to say that the value of something is intrinsic to an object from the amount of labor incurred in producing…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:51 AM
1

Adam Smith said many times that he was talking about commodities, so I suspect you're taking him out of context, like any troll would. I just took the quote from wikipedia. But it doesn't matter whether he was talking about commodities or not. Values are not intrinsic, even for commodities. Value is entirely, 100% subjective. Besides, even if you found something in Smith's version I disagree with, there are many versions of the theory. So what source would you consider definitive for the labor t…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:48 AM
1

It still discusses the production of commodities/goods/etc. Well, I guess since that involves labor, then yes. But that's not the point behind it, as I've been trying to say for a while now. The point of it is determining value, which it argues is intrinsic to a good based on the labor involved in obtaining it instead of the subjective opinion of people. That's an incorrect statements because "value" doesn't only mean price. If you weren't talking about some kind of economic value though, you we…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:31 AM
1

I don't consider absentee ownership property as an equal form of property deserving of the same rules. There aren't different "levels" of property, you either own something or you do not. Actually endless advocates of the LTV have advocated the same view I just stated a bunch of times- that all new physical-things-of-value come from labor. (Excluding rare luck, finding something, etc.) You're just plain wrong on this. You're trying to turn the labor theory of value into something it's not becaus…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:25 AM
1

While the bigger point of the LTV may be understanding value... Value is not just the bigger point, that's the whole point. That's why it's the labor theory of value. That's not using the definition of subjective I posted. My sentence correctly used that definition. You confused use-value with the value economics speaks of. People recognize water as useful for staying alive because that's a biological fact. However, in economics when you speak of value, you are speaking of ends that people wish …
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:10 AM
1

I wasn't talking about personal property but absentee ownership. You say that the defining thing with legitimate goods is how they are originally obtained. If this property was originally obtained legitimately, it cannot become illegitimate property anymore than you can change history. Again, I'm talking about physical things of value to people, meaning people decide what they value, however only labor can physically creates the things which we apply value to. First off, then you should use the …
/r/MensRights08/09/12 08:58 AM
1

The LTV does deal-with how goods are created. No, it deals with how goods are valued. That's why it's the labor theory of value, not the labor theory of goods. Then we can say that water's value is not heavily based on personal feelings/tastes. (Everyone realizes it's valuable in keeping us alive.) However art's value is more heavily based on personal feelings/tastes/opinions. But that goal of wanting to stay alive is subjective. It just happens to be a very commonly held goal. All of our values…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 08:38 AM
1

I did not, you illiterate buffoon. At the beginning of our discussion, we talked about rural property being established, and you were okay with that, but if a city grew up around it, then it's become wanted land and suddenly your ownership is violent. You added your own insane "logic." I talk about my logic right after your quote of me there, but thanks for affirming what I said, I guess. It's your idiotic theory, not mine- I shouldn't have to defend it... I'm not asking for you to defend it, I'…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 08:18 AM
1

Things of value that stopped being imaginary, & became physical, became real things of value because of human labor. That's what's known as a good. LTV doesn't deal with how goods are created, but how they are valued. I said the value of art is more subjective. Something can't be more or less subjective. It's either subjective or it's not. Incorrect. Incorrect? Those were questions. How can questions be incorrect?
/r/MensRights08/09/12 07:59 AM
1

In my example, I said a fully grown plant that was created with a mix of a seed & human labor is new. (So you know I'm not talking about the atoms.) Yeah, and I'm saying that those atoms taking on a different formation doesn't make it a "new" thing. The matter existed both before and after. I scrolled back in my comment history, I said many times that it's moral under some circumstances to claim land (and whatever natural stuff) is on it. You put this strange limitation on it that if someone wan…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 07:51 AM
1

Don't use violence to claim something which already exists if another person wants it. Perhaps your problem is that you think wanting something establishes it as yours. Serious question: I want Pluto. Is it mine, or do I need to go homestead/collect it to establish it as mine? I've brought up Pluto for a while, but I don't think you've ever addressed it. I've explained many times why such is immoral Why it's immoral is very different from the theory behind it. That's only true if "value" is an i…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 07:13 AM
1

I see, more than ever, that you are simply as dishonest as humanly possible. Can't get anything past you, can I? If the guy traded his labor for seeds (etc) & his labor grew full grown plants which did not exist before that's obviously something new. Traded with who? How did that person get the seeds? And that matter existed before, so it's not new. It's the same old matter in a new shape. Unless he had a proper claim on the old matter, he doesn't have any claim on this "new" matter. You said a …
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:57 AM
1

...however instead of explaining your problem, you speak vaguely about "natural resources." I didn't know you thought natural resource was a vague term. You should have said something earlier! Natural resources are all unclaimed scarce matter in the universe. It is also include claimed resources that have not been worked on, such as a tree growing on your yard. Since all matter was originally unclaimed, since we don't create matter from nothing, all property is originally based on claiming these…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 06:30 AM
1

Once he brings those seeds closer to town (& finds some unwanted land,& plants them) those new plants exist there because of his own labor. Ah, but what if someone sees him with the seeds he's collected and wants to claim them for himself? There is no new plant, so we cannot claim that there is a new things that exists as the fruit of his labor. And in reality, that isn't a "new" plant, it's just the same seed grown up, coming as a natural resource that Bob did not invent. We cannot say that the…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 05:45 AM
1

Your "argument" appears to be "all ownership/violence is based on on profit." That's incorrect. That's not what I said at all. I went into deep, detailed description about how property is based on self-ownership. My description here is to point out that legitimate property is sold for profit all the time in ways you've even agreed is a fair practice, but you assert that doing the same thing with property you disagree with, namely that of natural resources, is immoral without describing what the …
/r/MensRights07/09/12 10:25 PM
1

Almost all "price-based economists" failed to predict the tech bubble, housing bubble, etc. Assuming you're counting me as a price-based economist, then the Austrians sure didn't! Example 1 Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman are both left-wing, specifically Keynesians, by the way, while Peter Schiff and Ron Paul are both Austrians. Example 2 Example 3 This one's a very good collection from a whole bunch of different people. Example 4 Example 5 It's just like Fox News unfairly defining leftists as com…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:29 PM
1

I made a few edits to the last post, by the way. You might like to check them out. I described them at the bottom. Because he's not violently depriving another person of something which already existed. True, but that doesn't mean they aren't violently depriving them. That's my point. It's the exact same method (don't take my property or I will violently stop you), but you just think threats like that are legitimate when it's what you call "the fruits of your labor". So, as I said, property "to …
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:29 PM
1

That's your argument, not mine. No shit. Btw, that's your sentence up there, not mine. When I talk about someone "claiming nature" I don't mean something they've transformed or grown with their own labor, but simply claiming something that already existed. Me too. And by the way, it's not always immoral to do so. So you're finally talking about it?! Finally! Alright, so what is your distinction then? What makes land so especially different when it's still a scarce natural resource? As I've expla…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 04:19 AM
1

Your newest post was not your best. For example, I explained the land issue perfectly and you totally ignored it. You've made the point. Trying to explain it "perfectly" this way isn't really helping. You've made it quite clear for a while that you think defending land as property is violent, because they would defend the ownership of that property. That part doesn't confuse me. What does confuse is why you get so aggravated over this type of property ownership, when all other property is violen…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 10:36 AM
1

It's not legitimate "buying" (it's not a purchase from the other people who wanted that land.) The so-called "buying" (buying deeds from dead generations) is something modern people didn't consent to. Is there a reason you answer out of order? Also, your definition of violently claiming property here also extends to all other property, yet for some reason you don't apply it there. THAT'S my problem. ...deja vu. Ticket scalping can be parasitic (allowing a man to profit by creating no value, & ta…
/r/MensRights06/09/12 06:47 AM
1

Buying something to take it off the market further increases the scarcity. So... essentially you're against ticket scalping? Because talking in terms of that makes a lot more sense. I suspect it'll take months for you to realize this. . . So, are you going to try for that attitude adjustment thing too? You just admitted the LToV (like labor hours) explains "the cost of production." No, I said that when you have to pay more for labor, the cost of production goes up. That's like saying A=A. More e…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 01:48 PM
1

Greetings. Thank you for improving your attitude. No problem, man. I had only gotten kinda curt before because, as I said, I thought we would be ending it, and wanted to spit everything out as quickly as I could without regard. And when you do argue things, (like what counts as violence. . .) you seem to be missing the point: morally, there's a massive difference between protective violence (like protecting something you actually use) & hurtful violence. Even better, there is a visible differenc…
/r/MensRights04/09/12 05:43 AM
1

I've been debunking that for my whole life, & yet you act like I've never heard of it. First off, I have no idea what you know. I'm not you. Secondly, it's not a very commonly held belief. Hell, Keynesian economics is a commonly held belief and most people have no clue what it is. Thirdly, the point of that section was for me to put in the most simple form what I believe in the hopes that it would encourage you to follow that pattern. It obviously didn't. The section is supposed to talk about it…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 01:13 PM
1

This is gonna have to be in two parts. Know this: his actions further reduce the supply (creating artificial man-made scarcity, which is not legitimate physical scarcity) which further increases the shortage. So essentially, there's going to be a shortage, and this guy comes up with an evil plan to buy the thing so that he can sell it. I'm sorry, where's the evil mastermind part here? It's still on the market, it's no less scarce than it was before. The only difference is this guy's the one sell…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 01:13 PM
1

Thanks for pushing this down to a smaller size! Hit the save button by accident, btw. Deleted that message. I read about three sentences of your recent reply: you totally twisted something I said into "wanting the government to control the supply." I don't try to twist your sentences. I really don't. And how markets only work for consumers when consumers control them. Alright, now there's something fundamental I have to disagree with you on. The entire basis of trade, as long as it is made witho…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 07:19 AM
2

You pretend to be another anti-violence type, but when it's the rich using violence to hurt the poor, you ignore it. (Standard conservatism.) I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. And I have plenty of problems with the rich. Crony capitalism is possibly the worst problem in America today. The rich corporations use the violent government to take property that they did not rightfully earn. Where I disagree with you on is whether not doing everything you want is "violence". What you surely fail to…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:14 PM
2

This is getting ridiculously long. I'll sum up my thoughts. You say you don't want to reply anyway. Sorry if I seem curt. Your distinction between "personal" property and absentee property is undefined and arbitrary. If what you are saying is true and/or implemented, it also means that people should never save or invest. Ever. I want every city person to have a roughly equal amount of land/property for housing, and for business/industry. What makes you think you know whether that's the right amo…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 11:11 AM
0

Hey guys, I disagree with this thing! That's all that needs to be said!
/r/MensRights02/09/12 06:27 AM
2

Wow, this is getting long. Of course, with these quotes, this is a conversation for two. I'm talking about "absentee ownership" more like investors or historians do. (ie, not 100 percent literally like "the man put down his laptop, so it was not his." That's really silly, & you are wasting my time with this stuff. Sorry man, I don't mean to waste your time. I asked for a specific definition from the beginning. "absentee ownership, originally meant, ownership of land by proprietors who did not re…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 06:18 AM
3

That doesn't mean my ability to be an individual is dependent at all. I'm already an individual. Always have been, and always will be. Society comes with plenty of benefits, but the existence of individuals precedes society. Individuals can't interact unless individuals already exist. And as I said in the beginning, so what if there's not a single animal?
/r/MensRights02/09/12 04:16 AM
-1

Thanks man! Sorry about the downvotes :\
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:39 AM
8

Not really. Everything you do depends on the cooperation of others. Not everything, but I'll grant a good number of things. But so what? What do you think individuals interacting means? Your ability to pretend to yourself you're an individual rests upon the actions of millions of others in your society. I think you meant independent, not an individual.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:36 AM
1

Not the most pleasant person, was she? Still made a good point though.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:21 AM
1

Ayn Rand was a dogmatic asshole. No argument here. Doesn't make her point less valid though. Her entire political philosophy is that great (read: rich) men are responsible for all of civilized society, and that any move by the government to impede their power hurts everyone (ring any bells? Hint: GOP). Eh, sorta. It's more that the exercise of the mind to improve your own life while respecting the rights of others is responsible for all society. The true rich, in her view, simply exercise their …
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:18 AM
-1

Ha, that's a nice point. I think it's comparing individuals to "everyone else".
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:09 AM
1

Hey, no problem man. This "using the property at the moment" is something you made-up, not me. I believe every worker needs a property for living, and a property for business. Of course the worker must leave one property to go to another. My bad then :/ So if by personal property you didn't mean something they are personally using, where do you draw the line? Because in that case, you are allowing for absentee ownership. Personally, I believe in the theory of self-ownership. It's explained reall…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 02:54 AM
1

But they are organizing BECAUSE they are in a group, that's anti-individual. No it's not. Forming a group does not mean you suppress the individual. The point of individualism is that you do not judge a person because of the actions taken by different person because you've grouped them together. In other words, no guilt by association. Ok, not a law, but racial discrimination in hiring and housing. Not a law, but people are obviously discriminated against because they are a different race. That'…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 02:23 AM
11

So what if there's not a single animal? Society is still just individuals interacting.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 02:00 AM
4

Jim Crow laws judged people as a group and not as individuals. I'd get rid of Jim Crow laws. And whoever said I wouldn't allow black people to organize to defend their rights? Black people are individuals too.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:55 AM
2

No- they're using that as storage for the stuff they personally use. But they're not personally using it at the moment. That was my point. Incorrect. I am talking about city land & things on it. (I simply described them as large properties to clarify that I'm not talking about the junk in your house. ) Ah, I think you edited to expand what you were saying before. I don't remember reading that. But regardless, I am looking for a much more specific definition here, as I said. What constitutes city…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:54 AM
0

I'll have to disagree with you there. This doesn't ignore ignore how prejudice people think, it's saying that the way to combat it is to respect the right of the individual. You emphasize the importance of judging people as individuals yourself when you say to discriminate based on performance and ability. In other words, we do not need group thinking to combat group thinking, we need individual thinking to combat group thinking.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:47 AM
3

So the size of the property, which can be subjectively stated as "too large" or "too small", is what defines something as legitimate ownership or not? Well that's quite an arbitrary distinction. You also didn't say whether I could steal from other people if they aren't using something at the moment. Say, if a family goes away on vacation, leaving their house empty, may I take it for myself since they are not personally using it?
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:36 AM
4

So what you're saying is I can take whatever I want from other people as long as they're not using it at the moment? Please define what you believe is legitimate property more clearly.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:27 AM
0

That's what the quote is trying to say, kinda. It's saying that people should be treated as individuals, regardless of race, color, creed, social background, or anything else. She's saying that people who are truly for minority rights would be in favor of the rights of rich people as much as they would be in favor of the rights of blacks or women. They'd be for the right of the individual.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 12:32 AM
9

The point of this quote is that people should be treated as individuals and not as a group.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 12:29 AM
2

I really didn't mind that much either, I just wanted to reference this movie. This scene sucked.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 10:01 PM
-1

Oh yeah? I used to know a girl; she had a dozen guys. One of them found out about it... beat her up so bad she ended up at a hospital on Guerrero Street.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 12:54 PM
1

Obvious troll thread is obvious.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 10:52 PM
3

...and what did they say in reply?
/r/MensRights31/08/12 10:30 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter