meta_gunslinger

Is your mother underage? Sorry I didn’t know.

“Fascists have…” is like saying “Nerds have” or “Hackers have”. It is really only a broad label, either assigned by one self or by others. I know people who are strictly against any violence and still proud to use Fascist “branding”. Others wouldn’t want to be called Fascist but are called that by others.

You are a HN user. Saying “HN users have enacted physical violence” and implying it is all of them is just utter bs.

That’s amazing news! I hope more western countries follow suit and implement similar policies. The import of slave labour by the elites in order to undercut the workers should stop.

I'll just post this one reply because you seem to have a completely tribalistic perspective and I don't have the time to be sucked into a tribalistic black-hole:

From the average person's perspective, who is neither a Fascist/Nazi/Far-Right Extremist nor Antifa/Far-Left/wte - nobody cares about your violence Olympics, the fact that your opponent tribe claims the Gold medal while yours claims Silver or Bronze, is completely irrelevant to us. And the particular problem is that everybody is aware of the danger of the one tribe, but then there are people like you who dismiss, normalize and whitewash the excesses of yours just because "the other guy is worse".

I hope you have a good day.

Parent also said 'violence', why did you conveniently choose to ignore that? Antifa has absolutely enacted physical violence on actual human beings. Ah, I know, Antifa is just an idea! That violence cannot be attributed to them.

Good, it's about time the radical left is held to account for promoting and enacting violence unchecked for the past few decades, while at the same time anyone opposing insane Progressive policies and social engineering has been branded a far-right extremist.

Exactly, as also evidenced by the guy who was brutally murdered just because he was the CEO of a company someone had an axe to grind against.

> My contention is that the consequence of a bad decision shouldn't be condemnation.

Who said that? To pre-emptively respond before you misrepresent my position again, nobody said that the solution to people making bad decisions is condemnation. But when you go out all guns blazing and blaming everyone else (the system) - like the author of this blog post is doing - at least be prepared to receive some pushback.

> You've had the opportunity to actually take accountability and correct your bad decisions no?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

> What gave you that opportunity?

Sometimes luck, sometimes good risk mitigation, other times a mix of both.

Mind you, I'm not claiming all misfortune can be overcome, you might be struck by lighting tomorrow and there was nothing you could have done about it. But there are cases that some sacrifices (either financial or lifestyle) can lead to statistically better chances of overcoming hardship. If you haven't made any and hardship hits you then its unfair to make demands of the people that have made those sacrifices, that's all.

> And if society is not meant to help people when they're down, what's it for?

Identity & meaning, voluntary co-operation, exchange of goods and services. Protection against misfortune could be one of the components of a useful society, while you said "What's the point of society if not being a buffer for bad individual decisions?" which directly implies that someone cannot find any other point to society if it's lacking this property.

> You still haven't given your take despite calling everyone else out on theirs.

Why do you believe that everyone else has the same position as you do?

Moreover, why do you think that what I said has anything to do with your position? I only called out as a psychopath anyone who believes they are entitled to somebody else's labour - do you actually believe that yourself or do you consider that particular belief as a logical extension of your position? If the latter, please logically demonstrate and if convinced by your reasoning I'll apologize.

Then I called your view of society selfish (not you a selfish person as a whole), why do you tink everyone else believes the sole point of society is a buffer for bad decisions? I haven't seen anyone on this topic claiming this except you.

I make, have made, and will most definitely make plenty of bad decisions. The difference is that accept responsibility for their consequences rather than electing to yell at the clouds.

I don't know man, if your position is that the only point of society is to bail you out of bad decisions, you are too far gone for me to have the energy to get into a discussion. You are entitled to your opinion I'm not going to attempt changing that.

Sounds like a very selfish viewpoint.

I only need a valid argument when responding to a valid argument. You have made none thus far therefore I’m entitled to respond in kind.

Don’t know, just just made an argument from authority and I’m discrediting said authority.

Yeah and then when something bad happens to you, have no money and be a burden to society! Extremely responsible.

I am not poor but I am not rich either, why do you make assumptions?

Sartre was a nihilistc pdf-file and a prolific liar. I don't have any respect for his ilk either.

Ad-hominem is what you resort to when having no argument ;)

No, making policy out of your personal preferences is a dictatorship. Making policy by taking a representative majority of preferences is a democracy.

> instead of traveling and having fun when you are able bodied

Are you having trouble with reading comprehension? Jesus.

We don't care about your personal preferences to make policy though.

You can speak for yourself, because you know nothing about my background and your ideological bias leads you to embarrassing assumptions.

My family until my parents generation were dirt poor in one of those countries you would also call piss poor.

I mean that the people who brought the person to life are responsible to make choice that will ensure theirs long term survival.

e.g my grandmother had a brother who their brain stopped developing at a very young age (afaik 5), the parents ensured and my grandmother ensured that my uncle lived a full (but sadly difficult) life living and been taken care of by them and then my grandma after they passed.

> "you made bad decisions in the past so now you deserve cruelty"

Somebody will have to endure cruelty when someone makes bad decisions. The question is whether the cruelty will be received by the person making the bad decision or somebody else.

> It's rarely "you are making a bad decision right now so you should stop that before you deserve cruelty in the future".

So it's the economic system's fault that you weren't stopped before making a bad decision? It's the economic system's fault that schools teach gender theory instead of personal finance, economics and rational decision making?

The wrong decision is not being insured for disaster and not saving enough when you were able to work, electing to spend the money instead. Not being unlucky with your health or having an accident. That's clearly stated in my original response if you care to read and not knee-jekingly respond.

For someone who has been born disabled, the conversation should be moved to the people who brought them to life and are responsible for their survival.

A mindset like this has led to my TV taking 40 seconds to boot and glitching/lagging just during simple navigation, even though its hardware is about 10,000x better than what got us to the moon.

So much equivocation that it makes this article unreadable.

My statement was self-contained.

No, my position is that you cannot follow the law a la carte.

Moreover, morality is not objective, therefore anyone can claim that any particular law is against their morality and think it's justified to break it.

The law does not state "you have to pay for this, unless it's inconvenient".

Virtue signal received.