Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 353

This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.

It seems that the goalposts just moved again. I offered this verse as a response to your statement "I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation". I did not offer it in support of an argument that a man is entitled to another man's property. This should have been apparent from the context, as I immediately preceeded this verse by the relevant quote from your own post.

How about this where does Jesus say it is required that you have to give up your possessions in order to go to heaven? Your quote is missing the context of the second half of his statement. Jesus does not say that the only way to make it to heaven is to sell all your possessions and give them to the poor.

You moved the goalposts by changing the subject of conversation from "no private property" to "means of production owned by workers", which are two very different things. Socialism does require the means of production being owned by workers. It does not require the absence of private property. If you look through the last few posts, you'll notice that you went from talking about "no private property" to suddenly talking about "means of production owned by the workers". You'll not that my objection was to your "no private property" definition of socialism (which is incorrect), and not your "means of production owned by workers" definition. My latest objection was that you "moved the goalposts" by abandoning your previous definition (which was incorrect) while pretending that your new "means of production owned by workers" definition was what you were saying all along. Also, it's unclear why I have to spell this out for you when it should all be apparent from context.

You going to have to understand the context of what I was saying. It's a big boy concept which means that you can't just look at one sentence you have to look at everything. If we are discussing workers being entitled to more of the profits, a person of average intelligence would be able to grasp that when someone says private property ownership in that context they are talking about workers having a share in the means of production. None of that changes the fact that your comment was about workers that did not invest in capital equipment getting more of the profits that were gained by that equipment. Which is a socialists concept.

Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.

So when the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre in 1911 by Vincenzo Peruggia, this was socialism? I grow tired of your absurd attempts at redefining socialism. I figured after a few attempts, you'd give up and agree to the standard definition. Clearly I was wrong.

Again I am talking about means of production when I say property, I know it's tough for you to understand context.

It is possible. However, that's orthogonal to the discussion we're having. You stated that workers don't see the full benefit of their labor because they lack an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency. The necessary implication of that claim is that an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid.

Your logic has failed you again, it's not necessary that the ownership stake is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid. The ability to use it is a factor as well, two people one that is qualified to use machinery and one that is not, the one that is qualified will be paid more then the one that can only do manual labor. You are trying to define a grey world in black and white terms it simply won't work.

While I appreciate your condescending attitude, I don't see the problem with the hypothetical situation you set forth. The numbers line up, and everything is working fine. Are you offering this as an example of just how easy it would be for society to transition away from the compulsory-labor model we have now? If so, well done.

This was your quote.

that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.

If you go by my model they people working now have 6.5% less then before the lazy revolution, I would count that as negatively impacting those who work hard. I know you really wish you could do nothing get something in return and not impact anybody else but it's not true.

Comment: Re:Honestly, rifles are not the problem (Score 1) 497

by CanHasDIY (#48041985) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

There really needs to be some sort of "drops mic, walks off stage" tag for posts like this one...

In addition to MLK, I would also like to point out that the people we refer to (with pride) as our nation's "founding fathers" were, to the last man, capital criminals. Traitors, thieves, murderers... hell, by today's standards they'd either be labelled "terrorists" or "the honorable Senator from ______."

Comment: Re:Honestly, rifles are not the problem (Score 1) 497

by CanHasDIY (#48041933) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Pistols, however, are used by criminals, by people committing suicide, and by kids playing around with them. As a direct result, over 30,000 people die every year after being shot with a pistol.

You left a group out: pistols are also used by law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals.

How many of that 30,000 were violent felons who deserved to be shot? More than none, I promise you, and I'm glad for it - IMO, a woman's right to not be raped far exceeds a rapists right to life.

Comment: Re:ugh (Score 1) 497

by CanHasDIY (#48041903) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Good. As a libertarian, gun owner, voter, and not insane person, I understand that there needs to be SOME government regulation of guns. There is no reason not to try something to prevent insane people from getting firearms.

I agree.

They're going to murder anyway,

I disagree.

If you have a subset of the population presenting a threat to the rest, wouldn't it make more sense to separate them from everyone else, rather than try with futility (and inevitably fail) to essentially un-invent a tool?

If America treated mental illness like, you know, a fucking illness rather than a crime, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 497

by CanHasDIY (#48041861) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

I've never met a true anti-gun person. Every person I meet who argues that the general public shouldn't have (or only have very restrictive) access to guns also argues that the police should be allowed to use guns to enforce this argument. This is not an anti-gun argument. This is a monopolization of force argument.

If you as the opposite of "monopolization of force" think that there should be a balance of force between citizens and government and a real option of fighting the government, then you should start arguing for private ownership of real military heavy weaponry -- rockets, bombs, machine canons, armed fighter jets, attack helicopters, etc. Having hand guns in the hands of citizens is a joke in this context.

Reductio ad absurdum; besides, it's not like the tanks are firing rockets into neighborhoods with fighter jets.

All we need is an equalization of force: cops get tanks, we can have tanks; cops get machine guns with grenade launchers, we get them.

Of course, you're probably assuming TPTB would turn our own (actual) soldiers against us.. trouble with that is, they're going to be hard-pressed to convince guys like my brothers to start killing their own families over an ideology. Ever wonder why our soldiers are spread across the globe, rather than defending their own home turf?

Because soldiers are trained to use tanks and bombs to secure freedom, not take it away.

Comment: Re:Government gun regulation is useless (Score 1) 497

by CanHasDIY (#48041139) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

And the thread is Godwined. Awesome.

The fact that the only response you have is a childish raising of the internet meme banner, I'm confident that my points stand valid, and that you, in fact, do not have a reasonable nor rationale counterargument.

Thanks for conceding the point, although I do wish you kids would find more grown-up ways to do so.

Comment: Re:Government gun regulation is useless (Score 1) 497

by CanHasDIY (#48041099) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

Amount of guns doesn't mean unregulated.
In Sweden we have plenty of guns but even the complete gun-nuts wouldn't leave a gun unattended.

Because knowledge of firearms and their proper use and storage is part of your culture.

Here in the US, when intelligent, reasonable gun advocates push for bringing firearms education back into our schools (as was the case in many places 40 years ago), the anti-gun people scream and whine about how we're trying to "indoctrinate" their kids into liking guns.

Please do us all a favor and talk to these anti-gun weirdies (my word) - coming from one of the Scandinavian cultures they seem to consider so much more civilized than our own, they might actually listen to you.

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton