JaniSIr said: SmugSatoko said: You're the one who wants to destroy freedom of speech by making advertising illegal...which is the most retarded policy proposal I have ever heard of. You can block everyone on social media. If that doesn't violate their freedom of speech, then neither does a global ad block. JaniSIr said: SmugSatoko said: Utter nonsense. I already explained that freedom of speech is about whether the government imprisons or fines you for your speech. An individual blocking someone on social media has nothing to do with that, and is not remotely comparable to imposing an oppressive global dictatorship that outlaws advertising. (Which would be the most egregious violation of free speech in history, save for the fact that it's a blatant fantasy that would never occur in reality.) You're a lunatic. If that's your argument, freedom of speech also protects breaking and entering into your house as long as I shout something stupid really loudly... You can say what you want, but you can't force people to listen to you. @SmugSatoko This part killed me Also, the appeal to authority claim...what? thats basically him admitting you have more authority on the topic lmao |
Lucifrost said: The government can't block people on social media. I mean technically it can, but it's a violation of free speech. People sue over that. Being able to say what you want and being able to force people to listen to what you want is not the same thing. Defamation is already considered a crime, and that directly punishes people for what they say. And with my previous proposal the corporations could still have social media and whatever, like if you really want to follow your favourite brand's posting, that's your choice. But don't make me see that if I don't want to. Hydre_Ito said: @SmugSatoko This part killed me Also, the appeal to authority claim...what? thats basically him admitting you have more authority on the topic lmao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority A bad argument coming from an expert is still just a bad argument... @SmugSatoko you are getting impossible to talk to. SmugSatoko said: None of what you (vaguely) described is a scam. I literally explain exactly what you want me to do, and then you just say that didn't count. SmugSatoko said: Now you're just throwing around more buzzwords without making any meaningful points. You pretend to not understand the words I'm using. SmugSatoko said: Some ads pay highly...especially certain sponsorships. Some popular creators have made over a million dollars from a single sponsored video. You don't understand how per capita works. (Why do you think they made a lot? Because of their huge reach!) SmugSatoko said: You don't get to decide that; the market does. Spare parts usually are available and schematics are easily shared online, anyway. You claim to promote property rights, but are outright against actually owning what you paid for. (Right to repair) And just what sort of capitalist are you, if you support the market getting more an more monopolistic? SmugSatoko said: Property rights are the bedrock of modern civilization. Without IP, countless businesses, artists, etc. would not be able to profit from their hard work. And again, you are just claiming things without supporting anything you say with proof. IPs are really just a way to have monopoly on the market over something too... (And that is an incredibly deep rabbit hole that ranges from random patents on gameplay mechanics, to streaming monopolies that make anime impossible to acquire legally, and issues where an update to a device intentionally bricks it...) I was going to ask if you are a paid shill as a joke, and YES you are. My proposal would literally make me lose your job. I have never seen anyone more biased than you. XD |
| Probably not since I was a teenager. I don't buy Dr. Squatch soaps because the advertisement makes me cringe a bit. |
"Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.” |
Hydre_Ito said: This part killed me Also, the appeal to authority claim...what? thats basically him admitting you have more authority on the topic lmao I explained how he was wrong in every way then too, like how I did not commit that logical fallacy, and how he was mistaken about me not knowing about how ads work. JaniSIr said: Being able to say what you want and being able to force people to listen to what you want is not the same thing. No one is forcing you to listen. It's based on voluntary actions. If you choose to watch a video on a free site, you made that decision and tacitly agreed to their terms when doing so, including having ads display. Defamation is already considered a crime, and that directly punishes people for what they say. In the US, defamation is almost always treated as a tort; a civil wrong people can be sued over. Criminal charges are exceedingly rare for defamation in the US, since we have strong protections for free speech here. (I don't care what the laws are in whatever authoritarian hellhole you can cite.) And with my previous proposal the corporations could still have social media and whatever, like if you really want to follow your favourite brand's posting, that's your choice. But don't make me see that if I don't want to. They own the things they advertise on, so they have every right to advertise there. You are using their property. They're not forcing you to see anything; you voluntarily go there. If you don't want to see it, walk away. The least you could do is read your own article...or my reply showing how what I said is not what you claimed: SmugSatoko said: No it's not. An appeal to authority fallacy is claiming something is true because an authority figure says it is. What I said is a perfectly relevant fact that shows you are wrong. You claimed I don't know how ads work. I told you I literally had a career doing ads! I would have to know how they work to do that. You only mentioned a basic phenomenon that just about everyone knows, then acted like I somehow didn't know it, without any evidence of that. JaniSIr said: A bad argument coming from an expert is still just a bad argument... You claim I have made a bad argument, but have not demonstrated this to be true. I, on the other hand, have been showing line by line how bad your arguments are. you are getting impossible to talk to. I am revealing how your beliefs are indefensible. You know you can't justify banning advertising, so you resort to cheap tricks and laziness, even ignoring most of what I say, especially when I prove you wrong repeatedly. I literally explain exactly what you want me to do, and then you just say that didn't count. Go back and read. I said you have not backed up your claim that the majority of YouTube sponsorships are scams. You listed various things with no evidence or explanation about how they are scams, in most cases. Then you posted a vague description of mobile game ads and expected me to believe they are inherently scams, or something to that effect. Granted, many mobile game ads are misleading, but scams are already illegal and have a stricter legal definition, typically involving fraud with financial harm. You pretend to not understand the words I'm using. No, I am saying you are not making valid arguments at all. "Anti-consumer practices are bad, therefore advertising should be illegal" is not a coherent argument, let alone a convincing one. You're just spouting nonsense as always, throwing around concepts you have a poor understanding of in the hopes that someone will blindly believe you, even when you don't clearly explain your positions. Again, I did this for a living and know far, far more than you. That's not me saying I am right because of being some sort of authority figure; it's me telling you I have the experience to know on an intimate level how these things work. You don't understand how per capita works. Filthy liar. I do, in fact, understand basic concepts even a small child can grasp. (Why do you think they made a lot? Because of their huge reach!) Yes, I mentioned they are popular. Try paying attention. But it's not just the most popular ones making good money from ads. I spend a lot of time on YouTube and know for a fact that many YouTubers make a living from ad revenue even when they don't have tons of followers. You claim to promote property rights, but are outright against actually owning what you paid for. (Right to repair) I never said no one should have the right to repair something. I was describing how things work in reality. Many products have no user serviceable parts and the warranty will be voided if you attempt to repair it yourself. In that case, you do own it, but forfeit the privilege to have it repaired or replaced for free by the manufacturer. And just what sort of capitalist are you, if you support the market getting more an more monopolistic? I don't recall saying anything about favoring monopolies. In fact, what I actually support is the opposite: a free market where people can compete (as well as cooperate) more freely, developing and marketing products and services with less government interference. (Property rights are an important part of that.) Then, if you don't like a business's products, you have more options to get something different. When I said the market decides, that is what I meant: consumers choosing to buy the things they like the most. So products with spare parts available would naturally become more popular if that's what more people want. You are the one who wants the state to control things here. You would need a totalitarian dictatorship to outlaw advertising. You are the one who wants to force businesses to do things your way (presumably via criminal punishments) instead of letting the market decide. IPs are really just a way to have monopoly on the market over something too... (And that is an incredibly deep rabbit hole that ranges from random patents on gameplay mechanics, to streaming monopolies that make anime impossible to acquire legally, and issues where an update to a device intentionally bricks it...) IP does have the potential for abuse...but it is still crucial. Without IP, someone could spend millions of dollars making a creative work, then someone else could come along and claim they are the ones who made it, fraudulently trying to profit off of someone else's work without permission. Patents, copyrights and the like are highly specific. They do not let you monopolize a type of product. They only protect your right to a specific version of a product. Property, including intellectual property, is a fundamental right. I was going to ask if you are a paid shill as a joke, and YES you are. Filthy fucking liar. I am not a shill. I am not getting paid anything to post here, nor anywhere else. I don't do marketing for a living anymore either. All I am doing is defending freedom and everyone's right to start their own businesses and advertise without unbelievably stupid psychopaths like you trying to steal their money or throw them in prison. My proposal would literally make me lose your job. You don't even know what job I have, or if I currently have a job. lol I have never seen anyone more biased than you. XD I am biased toward liberty and human rights. |
SmugSatokoToday, 8:40 AM
 |
SmugSatoko said: I am biased toward liberty and human rights. No you aren't. You are for corporate rights against the consumer's. What happened to "Your rights end where mine begins"? They are putting ads on your smart fridge you bought and paid for, they are a full ight year past the border... The rest is not really worth replying to, we could have cleared up what exactly was your job, I thought you worked in marketing, it doesn't really matter, but the rest of your post is basically just the same bad argumentation I called you out for in the one you replied to... |
JaniSIr said: No you aren't. You are for corporate rights against the consumer's. What happened to "Your rights end where mine begins"? They are putting ads on your smart fridge you bought and paid for, they are a full ight year past the border... The rest is not really worth replying to, we could have cleared up what exactly was your job, I thought you worked in marketing, it doesn't really matter, but the rest of your post is basically just the same bad argumentation I called you out for in the one you replied to... Dude...you want to throw people in prison for ADVERTISING, one of the most normal human activities. Only a psychopathic retard could ever want such a thing. No one with a shred of intelligence or morality would agree with you. I already refuted everything you said. You're just too inept to notice. If someone tried that shit in my country, that would be the last straw that brings back public executions. We are not tolerating monsters like you and advertising will always be perfectly legal here. |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
JaniSIr said:
No you aren't. You are for corporate rights against the consumer's.
What happened to "Your rights end where mine begins"?
They are putting ads on your smart fridge you bought and paid for, they are a full ight year past the border...
The rest is not really worth replying to, we could have cleared up what exactly was your job, I thought you worked in marketing, it doesn't really matter, but the rest of your post is basically just the same bad argumentation I called you out for in the one you replied to...
No you aren't. You are for corporate rights against the consumer's.
What happened to "Your rights end where mine begins"?
They are putting ads on your smart fridge you bought and paid for, they are a full ight year past the border...
The rest is not really worth replying to, we could have cleared up what exactly was your job, I thought you worked in marketing, it doesn't really matter, but the rest of your post is basically just the same bad argumentation I called you out for in the one you replied to...
Dude...you want to throw people in prison for ADVERTISING, one of the most normal human activities. Only a psychopathic retard could ever want such a thing. No one with a shred of intelligence or morality would agree with you.
I already refuted everything you said. You're just too inept to notice.
If someone tried that shit in my country, that would be the last straw that brings back public executions. We are not tolerating monsters like you and advertising will always be perfectly legal here.
| @SmugSatoko There were a lot of human activities that got rightfully criminalized, so that's a non-argument. The one part I agree with you is that it probably won't ever be illegal, but not because it shouldn't be, but that it's borderline impossible to pass even basic consumer protection to law, like a right to repair bill... Or merely the ability to easily cancel your gym subscription. |
JaniSIr11 hours ago
JaniSIr said: No you aren't. Filthy. Fucking. Liar. You have no concept of individual liberty and rights. You are for corporate rights against the consumer's. What happened to "Your rights end where mine begins"? No, I am for liberty for all, including not letting the government control the decisions of private businesses. (Especially not to such an extreme extent that they wouldn't even be able to advertise and make any money.) You do not have the right to dictate how private businesses are run, especially when you don't even own or work for them. Consumers have a right to choose what to buy. (Or not buy.) Not being able to control private businesses is not a violation of consumer rights; that is an imaginary so-called "right" that never existed. The consumer rights you believe in are not rights at all; they're nothing more than tyranny. Don't talk about rights when you want to imprison people for advertising their own businesses, scumbag. They are putting ads on your smart fridge you bought and paid for, they are a full ight year past the border... If you don't like the product, don't buy it! Most fridges don't even have smartscreens. This is a non-issue. JaniSIr said: There were a lot of human activities that got rightfully criminalized, so that's a non-argument. It is every person's right to start a business and advertise it. There is nothing wrong with that and you don't get to decide how they advertise. The fact that you regard people who advertise their own businesses in the same manner as murderers and rapists is deeply concerning. You have no argument, and you know it. You want to commit VIOLENCE and unimaginable oppression against people and businesses who never did anything to physically harm you or violate your rights in any way. (I'm not talking about imaginary rights you think you should have over them, but every person's right to be free from aggression.) The one part I agree with you is that it probably won't ever be illegal, but not because it shouldn't be, but that it's borderline impossible to pass even basic consumer protection to law, like a right to repair bill... That's not "basic consumer protection" at all. You do not have the right to force a business to supply you with everything required to fix a product. If you want to fix it yourself, that is your responsibility. (Although plenty of businesses will voluntarily help you out with that.) You already have the natural right to repair things...but, as I explained, if you do so in a way that voids the warranty, that means you forfeit the privilege of having the manufacturer fix (or replace) it for you at no cost. (Aside from shipping fees.) Some product designs are legally protected business secrets, however. You never had the right to know those secrets. If you want full control, the only way is to design your own products. Or merely the ability to easily cancel your gym subscription. You agreed to the terms when signing up. If you want something that is easier to cancel, it is your responsibility to find that through due diligence. |
SmugSatoko7 hours ago
|
| well weak men obv fall for them cus they don't think with their brains, as a girl it doesn't obv work like honestly who wants to see same gender like that? |
 |
Reply to SmugSatoko
JaniSIr said:
No you aren't.
No you aren't.
Filthy. Fucking. Liar. You have no concept of individual liberty and rights.
You are for corporate rights against the consumer's.
What happened to "Your rights end where mine begins"?
What happened to "Your rights end where mine begins"?
No, I am for liberty for all, including not letting the government control the decisions of private businesses. (Especially not to such an extreme extent that they wouldn't even be able to advertise and make any money.) You do not have the right to dictate how private businesses are run, especially when you don't even own or work for them. Consumers have a right to choose what to buy. (Or not buy.) Not being able to control private businesses is not a violation of consumer rights; that is an imaginary so-called "right" that never existed. The consumer rights you believe in are not rights at all; they're nothing more than tyranny. Don't talk about rights when you want to imprison people for advertising their own businesses, scumbag.
They are putting ads on your smart fridge you bought and paid for, they are a full ight year past the border...
If you don't like the product, don't buy it! Most fridges don't even have smartscreens. This is a non-issue.
JaniSIr said:
There were a lot of human activities that got rightfully criminalized, so that's a non-argument.
There were a lot of human activities that got rightfully criminalized, so that's a non-argument.
It is every person's right to start a business and advertise it. There is nothing wrong with that and you don't get to decide how they advertise.
The fact that you regard people who advertise their own businesses in the same manner as murderers and rapists is deeply concerning.
You have no argument, and you know it. You want to commit VIOLENCE and unimaginable oppression against people and businesses who never did anything to physically harm you or violate your rights in any way. (I'm not talking about imaginary rights you think you should have over them, but every person's right to be free from aggression.)
The one part I agree with you is that it probably won't ever be illegal, but not because it shouldn't be, but that it's borderline impossible to pass even basic consumer protection to law, like a right to repair bill...
That's not "basic consumer protection" at all. You do not have the right to force a business to supply you with everything required to fix a product. If you want to fix it yourself, that is your responsibility. (Although plenty of businesses will voluntarily help you out with that.)
You already have the natural right to repair things...but, as I explained, if you do so in a way that voids the warranty, that means you forfeit the privilege of having the manufacturer fix (or replace) it for you at no cost. (Aside from shipping fees.)
Some product designs are legally protected business secrets, however. You never had the right to know those secrets. If you want full control, the only way is to design your own products.
Or merely the ability to easily cancel your gym subscription.
You agreed to the terms when signing up. If you want something that is easier to cancel, it is your responsibility to find that through due diligence.
| @SmugSatoko I have refuted literally all of these arguments once already. |
JaniSIr said: I have refuted literally all of these arguments once already. You most certainly did not. You didn't even address some of the things I said at all. I refuted everything you said line by line. You are totally delusional. Well then...since negotiations have broken down, I'll put it this way: If anyone somehow successfully attempts to outlaw advertising in the United States, the American people will brutally slaughter them. We're not helpless little pansies and will not tolerate having our freedoms destroyed. |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
JaniSIr said:
I have refuted literally all of these arguments once already.
I have refuted literally all of these arguments once already.
You most certainly did not. You didn't even address some of the things I said at all. I refuted everything you said line by line. You are totally delusional.
Well then...since negotiations have broken down, I'll put it this way: If anyone somehow successfully attempts to outlaw advertising in the United States, the American people will brutally slaughter them. We're not helpless little pansies and will not tolerate having our freedoms destroyed.
| @SmugSatoko Have you played Cyberpunk 2077? You would unironically LOVE to live in that dystopian world, and the cybernetic implants wouldn't even factor into that. |
JaniSIr said: Have you played Cyberpunk 2077? You would unironically LOVE to live in that dystopian world, and the cybernetic implants wouldn't even factor into that. I'm not sure why you think I want a dystopian world, but I want the opposite: a prosperous world where people are free to make their own decisions and only the most serious criminals like murderers are punished by the state. |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
JaniSIr said:
Have you played Cyberpunk 2077? You would unironically LOVE to live in that dystopian world, and the cybernetic implants wouldn't even factor into that.
Have you played Cyberpunk 2077? You would unironically LOVE to live in that dystopian world, and the cybernetic implants wouldn't even factor into that.
I'm not sure why you think I want a dystopian world, but I want the opposite: a prosperous world where people are free to make their own decisions and only the most serious criminals like murderers are punished by the state.
| @SmugSatoko Oh I don't know, because the world of that game is exactly the logical conclusion of your ideals: Advertisements everywhere Unlimited freedom to trample on others (like a private military force) Government that only serves corporate interests The guy that tried to represent the common people didn't get butchered, but only because brainwashing is a more subtle solution A low trust society where anyone and everyone will take advantage of each other (but instead of gym memberships it's usually murder) And your employer may just turn off your cybernetics at any point, which is not a mere smart fridge, but your actual body Okay, the last one is a bit of a stretch, but I guess the author didn't foresee the ownership issues that we ended up with IRL. Reality is truly stranger than fiction. |
JaniSIr said: Oh I don't know, because the world of that game is exactly the logical conclusion of your ideals: Advertisements everywhere Unlimited freedom to trample on others (like a private military force) Government that only serves corporate interests The guy that tried to represent the common people didn't get butchered, but only because brainwashing is a more subtle solution A low trust society where anyone and everyone will take advantage of each other (but instead of gym memberships it's usually murder) And your employer may just turn off your cybernetics at any point, which is not a mere smart fridge, but your actual body Okay, the last one is a bit of a stretch, but I guess the author didn't foresee the ownership issues that we ended up with IRL. Reality is truly stranger than fiction. That does not represent my ideals at all. You're letting your imagination run wild. I advocate a free market where regular people can easily start their own businesses...not megacorporations wielding the power of the state to enforce a stifled market that prevents countless small businesses from even starting. I oppose aggression, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "trample on others" schtick from. |
|
| Yeah, it is a way to sell attitude and I miss those ads instead of the "corpo approved" crap that we get today that have no soul. so yeah, I want hot girls in my ads in ads instead of the fat ones that Im getting now. Just like when they promote clothes for men and they are ripped as hell, If I wanted to see some mediocre physic, I would just look at my mirror. |
 |
Reply to SmugSatoko
JaniSIr said:
Oh I don't know, because the world of that game is exactly the logical conclusion of your ideals:
Advertisements everywhere
Unlimited freedom to trample on others (like a private military force)
Government that only serves corporate interests
The guy that tried to represent the common people didn't get butchered, but only because brainwashing is a more subtle solution
A low trust society where anyone and everyone will take advantage of each other (but instead of gym memberships it's usually murder)
And your employer may just turn off your cybernetics at any point, which is not a mere smart fridge, but your actual body
Okay, the last one is a bit of a stretch, but I guess the author didn't foresee the ownership issues that we ended up with IRL.
Reality is truly stranger than fiction.
Oh I don't know, because the world of that game is exactly the logical conclusion of your ideals:
Advertisements everywhere
Unlimited freedom to trample on others (like a private military force)
Government that only serves corporate interests
The guy that tried to represent the common people didn't get butchered, but only because brainwashing is a more subtle solution
A low trust society where anyone and everyone will take advantage of each other (but instead of gym memberships it's usually murder)
And your employer may just turn off your cybernetics at any point, which is not a mere smart fridge, but your actual body
Okay, the last one is a bit of a stretch, but I guess the author didn't foresee the ownership issues that we ended up with IRL.
Reality is truly stranger than fiction.
That does not represent my ideals at all. You're letting your imagination run wild.
I advocate a free market where regular people can easily start their own businesses...not megacorporations wielding the power of the state to enforce a stifled market that prevents countless small businesses from even starting.
I oppose aggression, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "trample on others" schtick from.
| No you are not. For example you are openly against right to repair, which means that the manufacturer has a monopoly over repairing their product, therefore it's so expensive, you might as well buy a new one. You paid a lot of lip service to property rights, but you hated the idea that you should own the electronic device you paid for. I mean a smart fridge really is a stupid product, but that doesn't mean you should get ads on it. And if your business model relies on making cancelling the subscription borderline impossibly difficult, then maybe you shouldn't be in business. Getting rid of the horrible intellectual property laws would also lower the barrier to entry, but you opposed that too... Also freedom isn't merely about the government not interfering, you also need to protect it from other citizens. |
JaniSIr4 hours ago
JaniSIr said: No you are not. Look at you, the anti-free-market guy, scolding me for not being free-market enough. lmao For example you are openly against right to repair, Not at all. I support your right to do whatever repairs you desire on things you bought. What I do *not* support is what you probably mean by that phrase: having the government force businesses to facilitate that. If the company voluntarily decides to help you out with it, that's fine. The latter is how a free market works; the former is not. "Right to repair" is anti-free-market at its core. You just didn't think things through. A free market is literally when businesses are free to operate in the way they choose, and if prospective customers don't like how they do things, they can choose not to buy their products and opt for something else instead. On the other hand, the more the government controls how businesses are run, the less free the market is. which means that the manufacturer has a monopoly over repairing their product, That's not necessarily true. You can always repair it yourself if you learn how and obtain the right tools. But the manufacturer is not obligated to provide you with the tools and so on. That is your responsibility. There are also safety, security and liability issues involved with so-called right to repair proposals. It is the prerogative of a company to operate their own authorized repair service and set the terms of their warranty. If you don't like how a particular business does things, you don't have to buy their product and can choose an alternate one that suits your needs. There are plenty of products designed to be repaired by the end user. therefore it's so expensive, you might as well buy a new one. Depends on the product. Even with expensive products I've owned, sending them in for repairs after the warranty had expired didn't cost much. And during the warranty periods, getting repairs or replacements was free. Sometimes they even covered the shipping cost both ways. You paid a lot of lip service to property rights, but you hated the idea that you should own the electronic device you paid for. But you do own it. It is legally your property after you have purchased it. Ownership does not always mean full control, though. Many products and services include terms of use you agreed to upon buying or joining. A free market does not mean some fantastical notion of "every product that exists must give me full control and function the way I want it to because I say so"; it means you get to choose from a variety of options. If you want more options, then join the side of the free market and stop trying to control how other people's businesses are run. I mean a smart fridge really is a stupid product, but that doesn't mean you should get ads on it. I explained this already too: SmugSatoko said: If you don't like the product, don't buy it! Most fridges don't even have smartscreens. This is a non-issue. And if your business model relies on making cancelling the subscription borderline impossibly difficult, then maybe you shouldn't be in business. I don't know of any subscriptions that are "borderline impossibly difficult" to cancel. Getting rid of the horrible intellectual property laws would also lower the barrier to entry, but you opposed that too... IP does not pose a barrier to entry, because it only protects very specific versions of things. There are endless other variations you can make of the same type of product. Also freedom isn't merely about the government not interfering, you also need to protect it from other citizens. You worded this ambiguously, so freel free to elaborate on what you meant by "protect it from other citizens." |
SmugSatoko3 hours ago
|
| no doubt about it, amerifats would brutally slaughter someone trying to ban their applebees and super bowl ads... but it'd be the first time ever they brutally slaughtered someone attacking freedom |
foxes_are_neet said: no doubt about it, amerifats would brutally slaughter someone trying to ban their applebees and super bowl ads... but it'd be the first time ever they brutally slaughtered someone attacking freedom You might want to learn the history of your own nation, like the Revolutionary War when the US was founded and broke free from British rule, or the Civil War that led to the emancipation of slaves in Confederate territory, or our efforts in World War II that resulted in Hitler's Nazi regime in Germany being defeated. Killing freedom-haters is what we're all about, buddy boy. |
|
| @SmugSatoko You could sort of count the revolution, despite the ulterior motives behind it, but that other shit is totally unrelated. Hitler and plantation owners...were attacking your freedom? Sure. Tell that to the TSA thugs molesting your daughter when you go to grandma's house for christmas, if you haven't been banned yet from flying for thought-crimes, or thrown in an ICE van because you have a tan. And remember to leave your gun at home, because that freedom is a no-no, too. Oh shit the computer accidentally placed you on a terrorist watchlist so now you're going to "gitmo." I guess you could just brutally slaughter your way through all that stuff though. That's what you're all about. |
foxes_are_neet said: You could sort of count the revolution, despite the ulterior motives behind it, but that other shit is totally unrelated. Hitler and plantation owners...were attacking your freedom? Sure. Hitler and slave owners definitively attacked freedom. ("Attacking freedom" were your exact words.) Tell that to the TSA thugs molesting your daughter when you go to grandma's house for christmas, if you haven't been banned yet from flying for thought-crimes, or thrown in an ICE van because you have a tan. And remember to leave your gun at home, because that freedom is a no-no, too. Oh shit the computer accidentally placed you on a terrorist watchlist so now you're going to "gitmo." I'm on the same page with you there, more or less. Too many freedoms have been taken away in the name of security. I guess you could just brutally slaughter your way through all that stuff though. That's what you're all about. lol. I meant that once things went far enough with freedom being attacked, Americans have killed a lot of people to defend it. What you mentioned isn't as extreme as outlawing advertising and imprisoning anyone who dares to advertise. There's no way we would tolerate that at all. |
|
SmugSatoko said: Hitler and slave owners definitively attacked freedom. Not that of americans. SmugSatoko said: I'm on the same page with you there, more or less. Too many freedoms have been taken away in the name of security Brutal slaughter when? SmugSatoko said: lol. I meant that once things went far enough with freedom being attacked Oh I see. It's not time yet. Maybe someday, if we feel like it. *moves goalpost* SmugSatoko said: What you mentioned isn't as extreme as outlawing advertising and imprisoning anyone who dares to advertise. Yeah those things...definitely aren't as extreme as a law against advertising.  |
foxes_are_neet2 hours ago
foxes_are_neet said: Not those of americans. All you said was "attacking freedom." But the slaves were American and Hitler's regime posed a dire threat to people around the world. Yeah those things...definitely aren't as extreme as a law against advertising. Those security measures are undoubtedly overreaching, but not nearly as extreme as outlawing advertising, which is very commonplace. If everyone who did advertising were to be imprisoned, that would be many millions of people. |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
foxes_are_neet said:
Not those of americans.
Not those of americans.
All you said was "attacking freedom." But the slaves were American and Hitler's regime posed a dire threat to people around the world.
Yeah those things...definitely aren't as extreme as a law against advertising.
Those security measures are undoubtedly overreaching, but not nearly as extreme as outlawing advertising, which is very commonplace. If everyone who did advertising were to be imprisoned, that would be many millions of people.
| @SmugSatoko Historical fact: they weren't citizens, which under the law then meant they weren't americans. But I know how you'll twist that one to fit your narrative.. As for your other ridiculous stretch of logic, fancying yourselves the fucking world police is the reason everything has become a wreck since ww2 and you americans have lost almost all your freedom, particularly in the last 24 years. Then again ww2 was never about freedumb, nor was the civil war; that was always just feelgood horse shit for public consumption. You people are slaves, your country is the world tyrant and you don't have the guts to brutally slaughter anyone but defenseless peasants from the air with bombs. |
foxes_are_neet said: Historical fact: they weren't citizens, which under the law then meant they weren't americans. If by American you mean citizen, then perhaps...but that word has other meanings. Native Americans were Americans, in a sense, before the US was founded as a country. The phrase "American slaves" is well-known and obviously refers to the fact that they were in the US. It's pointless semantics in the end. But I know how you'll twist that one to fit your narrative.. The narrative I was initially going with was the wording you established: attacking freedom. You're the one who subsequently narrowed it down. As for your other ridiculous stretch of logic, fancying yourselves the fucking world police is the reason everything has become a wreck since ww2 Without the US, the world would be a much darker place. The principles of liberty we were founded on created unprecedented prosperity around the world. Thanks to American influence after WWII, dozens of countries transitioned from dictatorships to democracies, with dramatically improved civil rights. The US military directly defends numerous nations that are unable to defend themselves. A high percentage of inventions people around the world use have American origin. I could go on, but you get the point. You're doing a poor job explaining how we're "the reason everything has become a wreck." and you americans "You Americans"? You're an American too, aren't you? bahaha have lost almost all your freedom, particularly in the last 24 years. The US remains among the most free nations, and is the most advanced and free nation in some respects. Then again ww2 was never about freedumb, nor was the civil war; that was always just feelgood horse shit for public consumption. Okay, then, what were World War II and the Civil War about? You people are slaves, Surely you don't mean that literally. A slave is someone legally owned as property and forced to work without pay. your country is the world tyrant How so? and you don't have the guts to brutally slaughter anyone but defenseless peasants from the air with bombs. If you mean historically, I covered how that is false. If you mean present day Americans...it's not so much about guts, but rather, how far people are pushed. Imprisoning millions of people just because they did advertising is so much more extreme than security measures that, for most people, don't even involve being criminally prosecuted. (Not that something so absurd as the former would even happen, but it's a good example of what would push many over the edge into violent revolution.) |
SmugSatoko28 minutes ago
|
More topics from this board
» do you guys know about the meaning of your own name?Ymir_The_Viking - Yesterday |
20 |
by Shishio-kun
»»
29 minutes ago |
|
» What is your opinion on Plastic Surgery?Takamura-sama - 9 hours ago |
16 |
by Adverrito
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Every animal on Earth somehow gained human intelligence and the ability to speak, are you still going to eat meat? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Dec 11 |
58 |
by Battleheart
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» What was the most valuable thing you got out of browsing the MAL forums?Rally- - 2 hours ago |
1 |
by fleurbleue
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Did you ever collect Yu Gi Oh! cards?DesuMaiden - Dec 1 |
30 |
by Shinku05
»»
3 hours ago |