HelixDab2

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Well, shit. I hadn't known about Inquisition. I think the last time I saw them was something like 2016? At least I only have the one t-shirt. :(

I haven't heard anything about Agalloch; what's going on there?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Gov't funded doesn't drop the cost that much. Countries in the west that are single-payer and/or have national/socialized healthcare systems pay between 1/5 and 2/3 of what we do per capita, on average. It might be better in countries where the entire supply chain is subject to price controls (e..g., China), but I don't know. But, regardless, if our system cost 20% of what it does now, or $900B, $3B would still be only .3% of the entire expenditure. Part of the problem is that, as far as western countries go, the US is just big. The population of Israel is estimated to be about 9.5M, compared to 340M or so for the US.

Again, to be clear: I'm not suggesting that we should be giving--or selling--Israel anything at this point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Jesus fuck. You argue that the tyranny of the majority doesn't exist, and when I prove that it does, with examples, you block. You can't even cite anything to justify your position.

What the shit, my dude.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, $24B, sorry.

If they spent $24.00 on their own defense, and the US gave them $3B, then, uh, they'd be 100% dependent on the US.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You think you're doing that. But are you? Or are things happening below the threshold of your consciousness, and your conscious brain thinks that it's the one running the show? Consciousness would be like the toddler with the toy steering wheel that thinks it's driving the car.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

The serious and obvious answer is: perhaps we're wrong in our definition of 'good'. If you start with the assumption that god creates and defines morality--which is where a lot of christians start--then if god were to do something 'evil', then we're the ones that are wrong in how we're perceiving and defining it.

The underlying assumption is that what we think is good must be mirrored by what a god thinks is good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

It's so wild that girls would be hot for someone from Slipknot, but did Beefcake the Mighty or Jizzmak the Gusher ever get any fangirls? No. (Oderus, on the other hand... I guess the Cuttlefish of Cthulhu was what all the girls really wanted.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Well, Armin Meiwes went to prison for that, so...

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago

I wouldn't say justified, buuuuuuuuuut where else could he have gone? China is about the only other possibility.

To be clear, I think he should be pardoned, and thing USA-Patriot act should be overturned.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It wouldn't even be noticeable. We spend a total of about $4.5 trillion [EDIT: on healthcare]; $3B is 0.07% of that total.

And, BTW, we have terrible outcomes for how much we spend.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

They won’t; sponsored by the big capital

Yes, but that doesn't mean they can't get away from it. Sanders managed to run very strong presidential primary campaigns, twice, and almost all of his funding was from individual donors giving his campaign under $100 each.

Dems could do this, if leadership had the will.

3rd parties can't, or they can't yet, because none of them have put in sufficient work at a grassroots level yet to consistently win places on state legislatures, much less federally.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You are arguing in favor of being a slave with no rights because JKR paid to have a law passed.

No, what I specifically said was that we shouldn't follow the will of the majority in all things, because the majority can and does act in tyrannical ways. Meanwhile, you're insisting that letting everyone always vote on every single thing would somehow result in a utopia.

Here's the thing: I live in the rural south. Our local high school has one transgender student. The superintendent consulted with an attorney, and then let the student us the bathroom of the gender that they identify with. The community as a whole fucking lost their minds. The school board held a public meeting about it where they explained why they took the steps they did, and then they let community members speak. In a town of 5k people, there were over 500 people attending. They cut off comments after three hours. It was roughly 10:1 against treating this poor girl like a girl.

If they'd taken a vote that very day, she would have been run out of town on a rail covered in tar and feathers, because the town is full of bigoted evangelical christians. But you think that people should always get to vote on everything, even when they have zero real knowledge about the subject? That's absolute nonsense.

The places in then world where people vote on policy are the objectively safest for trans people.

Okay, and right fucking now those countries are voting for people that have explicitly told them that they're going to clamp down on trans rights, and then those people are doing it. So the countries where people vote are becoming less safe for trans people, even if it's still safer than being transgender in, say, Iran.

view more: ‹ prev next ›