Paleo And Politics page 19

[kenn]

Common sense would have you eating a low-fat diet. Your "common sense" is internalizing the values of your rulers. That's ok, lots of people are fooled. But to pretend your "damning-the-man" is ludicrous.

"The shrill gloats and exultatios of A [the welfare parasite], who has got something for nothing, drown out the repining of B [the taxpayer] who has lost something that he earned. B, in fact, becomes officially disreputable, and the more he complains the more he is denounced and detested. He is moved, it appears, by a kind of selfishness which is incompatible with true democracy. He actually believes that his property is his own, to remain in his keeping until he chooses to part with it. He is told at once that his information on the point is innaccurate, and his morals more than dubious. In an idal democracy, he learns, property is at the disposal, not of its owners, but of politicians, and the chief business of politicians is to collar it by fair means or foul, and redistribute it to those whose votes have put them in office."

--H.L Mencken, Baltimore Sun, May 12, 1940, in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy (1995), pp. 48-49.

[Him]

That is true. I'm not saying things are necessarily directly connected. I believe that the system balances out, and there is never any one way we can measure that. For example, if I buy a car from a Toyota dealer - that dealership will gain immediate profit and last longer as a business. Versus I buy a car from a Toyota dealer and that has an effect on the Toy industry in Europe.

Many systems have linkages even though they are not explicitly linked. Is that what you are thinking of? For example, if the people who buy from Toyota dealers also buy European toys that's a pretty direct link even though those two industries have no explicit linkage. If Toyota dealers and the European toy industry use the same (or exchangeable) currency, that's a less direct but still relevant link. It's hard to completely uncouple systems that are tied together by something in common like that. That's why ideas like "rising tide", "trickle down", et cetera end up being so popular and so contentious.

Fair enough on creativity; I can't really make a response to that because we'd just be arguing over subjective definitions XD

About watts and stripes - how do you know they don't exchange? Maybe the fact that it was painted meant that it was more expensive, therefore affecting the cost for which you bought the machine to begin with, making it less efficient. I think it's more complicated than that. That is why I can only look at things at a system; because it already contains all the connected things in a vacuum, and then you can sort of hypothesize on the system rather than the details of the system that are prone to be incorrect based on nonsensical values.

Stripes can be an indicator, but indicators are not the same as what is indicated.

Race cars go fast.
In order to go fast, race cars are expensive.
In order to pay for expensive cars, race car owners seek out sponsorships from businesses.
In order to provide a quid-pro-quo for sponsorship, race car owners put sponsor logos (advertisements) on their vehicles.
Therefore, fast cars are indicated by business logos painted on the outside.

Does that mean that putting an STP sticker on your Toyota will make it go faster?

Yes, that is why I never answer anything in this thread when I am brain-dead from work xD

We are opposites then.

Common sense would have you eating a low-fat diet. Your "common sense" is internalizing the values of your rulers. That's ok, lots of people are fooled. But to pretend your "damning-the-man" is ludicrous.

To be picky...

Conventional Wisdom would have you eating a low-fat diet.

Common Sense says that since our bodies extract everything we need to live from our food, and we have only one "eat" signal, eating excess calories (as indicated by gaining unhealthy body fat) is an indication that some need (a trace nutrient, for example) isn't being satisfied by the food being eaten and our body is responding by signaling us to eat more.

Convenience is what you were thinking of. It's convenient if you internalize the values would-be rulers want you to hold, because doing so makes you easier to direct. Even there you had a critical flaw: would-be rulers don't want you to internalize their values, they want you to internalize values that are beneficial to the would-be rulers. Would-be rulers hold entirely different values than they would ever want you to hold.

Three very different ideas. I guess it's understandable that you mixed them up since they all start with the letter 'C'.

[Primal Moose]

Garden-variety authoritarian.

So, you think that since I believe the government has a duty and legitimate role to protect the lives and property of its civilians from those that mean to do them harm, I'm authoritarian? My god, you are officially the dumbest, most idiotic person I've ever talked to.

[Primal Moose]

Common sense would have you eating a low-fat diet. Your "common sense" is internalizing the values of your rulers. That's ok, lots of people are fooled. But to pretend your "damning-the-man" is ludicrous.

You really don't have very many functioning brain-cells, do you?

Just because I'm not sitting in my own filth and raping under-age girls in a park while posting to Facebook on my apple product I'm not against "the man"? Fuck off. I guarantee you I've done more to distance myself from the system wherever legally, fiscally, and logistically possible, and do more every year, than any of those losers living in Zuccotti Park begging for the government to step in and cradle them and be their nannies.

[Rojo]

The more you name-call, the more you lose.

[kenn]

The more you name-call, the more you lose.

To whom is that addressed?

[Primal Moose]

The more you name-call, the more you lose.

I don't have to win with the likes of you. I've posted facts, you've posted lies and ignored my facts. I really couldn't give a shit if you think I'm "losing".

[Him]

...Just because I'm not sitting in my own filth and raping under-age girls in a park while posting to Facebook on my apple product I'm not against "the man"?...

Is there only one The Man? I thought it was more nuanced than that.

"In the Southern U.S. states, the phrase came to be applied to any man or any group in a position of authority, or to authority in the abstract. ..."

The Man is whoever is in a position of authority over you. If you are a renter, your landlord is The Man. If you own a house, the county tax assessor is The Man. If you have student debt, banks holding that student debt are The Man, and so on.

I suspect that the Occupy people and the Tea Party people are EQUALLY against The Man. It's just that the Occupy people are mostly low income/high debt people, therefore their The Man is whoever owns their debt. On the other hand the Tea Party people are more likely to be low debt/higher income people, therefore their The Man is whoever is collecting taxes. The fact that The Mans are different doesn't mean that either group is less passionate or dedicated to their cause. Nor that either group is right about who's The Man.

[Primal Moose]

I wasn't the one who used the term "the man". Rojo did, that is why I was quoting him.

And for the record, I never claimed to be, or claim membership of, either one of those groups. I believe they both completely missed the mark.

[Rojo]

I wasn't the one who used the term "the man". Rojo did, that is why I was quoting him.

And I was responding to someone who said libertarians are "damn-the-man".