• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Communism derail from "Rittenhouse" thread

Generation55

Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Messages
163
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I don't see why it's such a joke to defend a community. People were starting fires and looting businesses. You can't have property rights if anyone can just look and set fire to your business. It should be common sense.

But, since BLM are on the left side of the spectrum, they don't view private property rights as anything special. Communism involves the abolition of private property rights. So by attacking property rights they are showing us how easily they can all take our stuff if they all decided to. You either agree with being able to defend your stuff or you don't. The militia that showed up in Wisconsin was on the side of defending property rights. The rioters and looters were not. This is all so simple but I feel like people miss this very simple point.

Ask yourself a simple question: Would I want a riot and looting in my town? The answer will always be "no."

And if you don't think I have any idea what I'm talking about, this is basically what Martin Luther King said:
"But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act."
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,860
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I don't see why it's such a joke to defend a community. People were starting fires and looting businesses. You can't have property rights if anyone can just look and set fire to your business. It should be common sense.

But, since BLM are on the left side of the spectrum, they don't view private property rights as anything special. Communism involves the abolition of private property rights. So by attacking property rights they are showing us how easily they can all take our stuff if they all decided to. You either agree with being able to defend your stuff or you don't. The militia that showed up in Wisconsin was on the side of defending property rights. The rioters and looters were not. This is all so simple but I feel like people miss this very simple point.

Ask yourself a simple question: Would I want a riot and looting in my town? The answer will always be "no."

And if you don't think I have any idea what I'm talking about, this is basically what Martin Luther King said:
"But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act."

“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? ... It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”​


― Martin Luther King Jr.
 

Generation55

Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Messages
163
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I don't see why it's such a joke to defend a community. People were starting fires and looting businesses. You can't have property rights if anyone can just look and set fire to your business. It should be common sense.

But, since BLM are on the left side of the spectrum, they don't view private property rights as anything special. Communism involves the abolition of private property rights. So by attacking property rights they are showing us how easily they can all take our stuff if they all decided to. You either agree with being able to defend your stuff or you don't. The militia that showed up in Wisconsin was on the side of defending property rights. The rioters and looters were not. This is all so simple but I feel like people miss this very simple point.

Ask yourself a simple question: Would I want a riot and looting in my town? The answer will always be "no."

And if you don't think I have any idea what I'm talking about, this is basically what Martin Luther King said:
"But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act."

“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? ... It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”​


― Martin Luther King Jr.

Yes, but we also can't have a functioning society if we have private property rights and we don't end up having consequences for the rioters.

If there's no consequences, there's no property rights.
If there's property rights, there's consequences.

What say you guys?
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,685
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
I don't see why it's such a joke to defend a community. People were starting fires and looting businesses. You can't have property rights if anyone can just look and set fire to your business. It should be common sense.

But, since BLM are on the left side of the spectrum, they don't view private property rights as anything special. Communism involves the abolition of private property rights. So by attacking property rights they are showing us how easily they can all take our stuff if they all decided to. You either agree with being able to defend your stuff or you don't. The militia that showed up in Wisconsin was on the side of defending property rights. The rioters and looters were not. This is all so simple but I feel like people miss this very simple point.

Ask yourself a simple question: Would I want a riot and looting in my town? The answer will always be "no."

And if you don't think I have any idea what I'm talking about, this is basically what Martin Luther King said:
"But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act."

“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? ... It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”​


― Martin Luther King Jr.

Yes, but we also can't have a functioning society if we have private property rights and we don't end up having consequences for the rioters.

If there's no consequences, there's no property rights.
If there's property rights, there's consequences.

What say you guys?
Property rights are only one part of our panoply of rights that we have. I get it, you don’t want looting and violence. Like the American Revolution, and the Boston Tea Party. Celebrated acts of mass protesting, including burning and violence that resulted in the birth of our nation.

Property rights aren’t particularly sacred to those who have no property. And when you have local government officials routinely denying the rights of unarmed African Americans the basic right to even live, your not going to find much sympathy for your vaunted property rights.

WRT your other post above about allowing people to protect their property in such times, I tend to agree. But Rittenhouse wasn’t defending his property. He wasn’t even invited by the property owner to defend his property. He just went down there to be involved and to carry a gun so he could play the part of the hero. He was an idiot, with no training and a mind too undeveloped to think out the consequences. I don’t think he lost the right to self defense though. But he still bears responsibility for putting himself into such a violent situation.

And furthermore, he wandered away from the property he was supposedly defending. So he wasn’t defending anyone’s property when he was attacked. His actions demonstrate the danger of our uncontrolled gun culture, a fantasy product of the NRA, gun manufacturers, and gun dealers to sell more guns. If you want to have the opportunity to protect private property, then do it yourself, or at a minimum, hire responsible, trained and licensed adults to do so. Not anyone who happens to get their hand on a semi automatic rifle.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,860
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I don't see why it's such a joke to defend a community. People were starting fires and looting businesses. You can't have property rights if anyone can just look and set fire to your business. It should be common sense.

But, since BLM are on the left side of the spectrum, they don't view private property rights as anything special. Communism involves the abolition of private property rights. So by attacking property rights they are showing us how easily they can all take our stuff if they all decided to. You either agree with being able to defend your stuff or you don't. The militia that showed up in Wisconsin was on the side of defending property rights. The rioters and looters were not. This is all so simple but I feel like people miss this very simple point.

Ask yourself a simple question: Would I want a riot and looting in my town? The answer will always be "no."

And if you don't think I have any idea what I'm talking about, this is basically what Martin Luther King said:
"But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act."

“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? ... It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”​


― Martin Luther King Jr.

Yes, but we also can't have a functioning society if we have private property rights and we don't end up having consequences for the rioters.

If there's no consequences, there's no property rights.
If there's property rights, there's consequences.

What say you guys?
What the hell are you talking about???

More than 250 arrests in Kenosha unrest; most have been from the surrounding area
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,137
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
But, since BLM are on the left side of the spectrum, they don't view private property rights as anything special. Communism involves the abolition of private property rights.

This is a stupid straw man. It is incredibly dishonest.
BLM does not equal communist.
That’s just achingly stupid.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,075
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I note that the Soviet Union had an offense called  Parasitism (social offense) - "Social parasitism was a political crime in the Soviet Union when someone was accused or convicted for living allegedly at the expense of other people or society." But in fairness to the Soviet Union, it did achieve some approximation of full employment, even if some of it was not much more than makework.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
But in fairness to the Soviet Union, it did achieve some approximation of full employment, even if some of it was not much more than makework.

While I realize this is a bit of Generation55's derail, in my experience, I've seen a lot of makework and waste in capitalism, too, especially in white collar jobs. There will be reluctance by some individuals to come forward and admit their participation in waste and so let's look at something in the third person...so, ... there are probably good examples in the movie Office Space.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,111
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
But, since BLM are on the left side of the spectrum, they don't view private property rights as anything special. Communism involves the abolition of private property rights.

This is a stupid straw man. It is incredibly dishonest.
BLM does not equal communist.
That’s just achingly stupid.

“Dishonest and stupid” works, though.
In fact it’s so effective that it has been adopted by the GQP as their new “forthright and truthful”.
 

Generation55

Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Messages
163
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Marxism is a bankrupt economic system. Nobody can ever tell me how it works. I once asked someone, "I don't want to work. What happens to me in communism?" Person told me, "Someone will build you a house and [blah blah blah blah..... bunch of irrelevant stuff from a tangent]

Can you point to a specific place in Das Kapital where it says that they will build you a house because you are lazy?

So what will happen to the people who don't want to work under communism? Would they be homeless? Sounds like capitalism.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Marxism is a bankrupt economic system. Nobody can ever tell me how it works. I once asked someone, "I don't want to work. What happens to me in communism?" Person told me, "Someone will build you a house and [blah blah blah blah..... bunch of irrelevant stuff from a tangent]

Can you point to a specific place in Das Kapital where it says that they will build you a house because you are lazy?

So what will happen to the people who don't want to work under communism? Would they be homeless? Sounds like capitalism.
Perhaps they get a small amount of income to live but not enough to really do much else with and so they will be motivated to do more if they want more, but I don't know. I suggest you find out from a primary source that describes how Marxism handles it rather than Trump's "people are telling me..." If you figure it out from a primary source, please let us know.
 

Generation55

Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Messages
163
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Marxism is a bankrupt economic system. Nobody can ever tell me how it works. I once asked someone, "I don't want to work. What happens to me in communism?" Person told me, "Someone will build you a house and [blah blah blah blah..... bunch of irrelevant stuff from a tangent]

Can you point to a specific place in Das Kapital where it says that they will build you a house because you are lazy?

So what will happen to the people who don't want to work under communism? Would they be homeless? Sounds like capitalism.
Perhaps they get a small amount of income to live but not enough to really do much else with and so they will be motivated to do more if they want more, but I don't know. I suggest you find out from a primary source that describes how Marxism handles it rather than Trump's "people are telling me..." If you figure it out from a primary source, please let us know.

That sounds like capitalism. We give people food stamp allotment and section 8 housing. A lot of these people don't do anything more to improve themselves.

Nobody has ever explained how "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" works. Nobody is just going to start building houses for people with no incentive. Nobody is going to invent anything with no incentive. Everything would be stagnant. Heck, we have the profit motive now and there's some people who stay in minimum wage jobs for 20 years. Imagine if we didn't have that motive.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,630
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Marxism is a bankrupt economic system. Nobody can ever tell me how it works. I once asked someone, "I don't want to work. What happens to me in communism?" Person told me, "Someone will build you a house and [blah blah blah blah..... bunch of irrelevant stuff from a tangent]

Can you point to a specific place in Das Kapital where it says that they will build you a house because you are lazy?

So what will happen to the people who don't want to work under communism? Would they be homeless? Sounds like capitalism.
Perhaps they get a small amount of income to live but not enough to really do much else with and so they will be motivated to do more if they want more, but I don't know. I suggest you find out from a primary source that describes how Marxism handles it rather than Trump's "people are telling me..." If you figure it out from a primary source, please let us know.

That sounds like capitalism. We give people food stamp allotment
Giving people food stamps isn't capitalism. It's borrowing a feature.

and section 8 housing.

Section 8 housing isn't capitalism.
A lot of these people don't do anything more to improve themselves.

Nobody has ever explained how "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" works.

Dunno. Ask jesus.

Nobody is just going to start building houses for people with no incentive.
Habitat for Humanity?
Nobody is going to invent anything with no incentive. Everything would be stagnant. Heck, we have the profit motive now and there's some people who stay in minimum wage jobs for 20 years. Imagine if we didn't have that motive.
Ok, but honestly I forgot how to tie your point back to the op?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,112
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
From the videos, it looks clear to me that the first shot was before his hand was near the gun. And, in fact, the medical examiner said the shot to the hand was the second shot, the kill shot was the third or fourth. The first shot was to the groin, which would have disabled him. Even if that one was justified (I'd disagree), no more shots were needed after that to stop any threat. It was unjustified homicide. He is responsible for every trigger pull, he doesn't get freebies just because he started shooting.

No--a groin shot is not going to be immediately disabling.

The shot fractured his pelvis, and he did fall face first.

And even if it is it takes time to evaluate whether someone is down. Firing another shot takes much less mental processing than evaluating whether the next shot is necessary. The reality is that you can end up with multiple shots fired into a target that is clearly down without any wrongdoing.

I don't care, still his responsibility.
It does take much less time. And I suppose shooting someone who was just already there dying on the sidewalk visibly takes less time than calling an ambulance. And it takes a lot less mental processing to take a bribe than call in a suspicious truck at the border.. or hell, just wave them through!

"Without wrongdoing"... It's only barely OK to do that in a war zone let alone in a civilian engagement.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Staff member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,059
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Nobody is just going to start building houses for people with no incentive.

Nobody like you, that is.View attachment 36206

Fortunately, not everyone is like you.

I've volunteered with a local group that was indistinguishable from Habitat for Humanity. I didn't last long, as a custom picture framer my attention to detail was too too far out there for housing construction. :)
But they were a great bunch and I totally supported the mission.

Nevertheless, I'm glad I wasn't dependent on volunteers to have a place to live.

Tom
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,111
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
"Truly needy" == lazy, irresponsible people who fuck without protection
If more people were like Jimmy, some of the needy could get housing, not just the truly needy mouth breathers.
 
Top Bottom