the bigoted, poorly written, lolbertarian, golly-gosh thread

[Henry Quirk]

Lord knows I don't wanna sully someone else's precious thread with my shit, so (when I have a mind to post in this forum) I’ll confine myself to this thread.

-----

Pretty much any place where I posted my suggestion to privatize marriage I got shit thrown at me. All I can figure is that it's way more important for a whole whack of folks to 'be accepted' than to simply get on with living.

Seems to me: any means by which a person can 'do' sumthin' with a minimal of interference (and assistance) from others is a good thing, but I guess that puts me in the minority.

*shrug*

[Sock Puppet]

[Henry Quirk]

pffftt!

[Kael]

Well, yeah, actually, it does put you in the minority. Humans are social creatures, acceptance and validation from ones society, family, group, neighborhood, etc., is a big part of the way most humans live and interact with the world.

And your "privatize marriage" scheme won't even fail, it'll never get off the ground. It dismisses and ignores the rather large emphasis most people put on social interaction and shared institutions, and it's far more than needs to be done and nobody likes extra work.

[ImGod]

I agree with the premise that marriage shouldn't be government sanctioned.

But genie/bottle.

You'd have to convince everyone who's married now that it needs to be done away with before you could ungovernmentsanction it. That would take turning the tax codes and a whole host of other legal benefits on their ear, overnight. Doing so all at once would be like forcing millions of divorces and wouldn't be politically feasible. Doing so slowly would take too much time and keep marriage benefits out of the hands of millions for decades.

If you want to get government out of marriage the best way long term is to let more diverse groups marry and adopt, even out the tax codes, get rid of employer based health insurance, and let people chose anyone they want to have "spousal consent" for medical issues. People probably won't bother if there is no incentive.

[Henry Quirk]

"Humans are social creatures, acceptance and validation from ones society, family, group, neighborhood, etc., is a big part of the way most humans live and interact with the world."

Sure, but there's no baseline for this. Some folks need more, some less.

#

"it'll never get off the ground"

Don't recall sayin' it would.

It was suggestion, nuthin' more.

[ChuckF]

I must commend the descriptive thread title.

[Henry Quirk]

america

It was the circumstance by which one could self-deliberate (rather than be deliberated by another). This circumstance was not equitable, enlightening, or fulfilling. Simply: the door was opened and one was left to his own devices to navigate what he found on the other side. Win, lose: mostly (if not all) on you.

It is the circumstance in which equity (of thought, of economy, of selves) is the prime concern (never mind the nascent politburo in the corner), overriding any and all other concerns. In particular: the idiosyncratic interest must always give way to the communitarian interest. A wireless node in every home (and, soon, in every head).

Piss-poor echo of what it was; betrayal of what it could have been.

[ChuckF]

[ImGod]

I have to constantly keep myself from voting, supporting people, and doing the shitty things that would very much benefit me. I wasn't born with a silver spoon up my ass, but I'd benefit from almost every policy put forth by the hard right/teabaggers. Lower taxes, less government, fend for yourself. It helps I'm white, tall and have dark hair. Tall white dark haired people have a statistical advantange in promotions and pay.

Without having to support seniors, poor people, and the government, my household would bring home at an average person's salary extra per year. Add in a serious reduction in the military and I'd be rolling naked in $100s.

So to be honest, I'm about ready to give in and take from the stupid poors around here. Every year they complain taxes are high, the government is too big, and at the same time they mooch with their unemployment, tax refunds, and emergency room healthcare/medicad/subsidised school lunches, etc.. So if I joined the crowd they vote for, I'd be ahead even more once we cut them off and give them the shit sandwich they keep ordering. Either way the social experiment goes, I've got enough and stand to make more.

Poorly written. Eh, close enough.

Lolbertarian enough. Prolly

Bigoted. Sorry forgot. Mexicans stop cleaning my house...errr taking our jobs...and go home. We can't support you. Blacks stop spitting out welfare babies, stop protesting, get a job instead of drinking 40s on the corner, and the police wouldn't shoot you if you'd stop dealing drugs.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

america

It was the circumstance by which one could self-deliberate (rather than be deliberated by another). This circumstance was not equitable, enlightening, or fulfilling. Simply: the door was opened and one was left to his own devices to navigate what he found on the other side. Win, lose: mostly (if not all) on you.

It is the circumstance in which equity (of thought, of economy, of selves) is the prime concern (never mind the nascent politburo in the corner), overriding any and all other concerns. In particular: the idiosyncratic interest must always give way to the communitarian interest. A wireless node in every home (and, soon, in every head).

Piss-poor echo of what it was; betrayal of what it could have been.

LOL, another lolbertarian fuckwit.

I love that "left to their own devices" bit. Yup, that's a sane, rational, humane way to order a complex civilization: everyone is on his own, sink or swim.

What era were you thinking of, Henry, that you find so appealing, the promise of which has now gone up in smoke because of "communitarians"? The 19th century in America, maybe? The era of black slavery, genocide against Native Americans, child labor, the Gilded Age where a tiny minority got rich and the rest of the urban masses labored in sweat shops without union protection, the era when periodic Panics, as they were called then, wiped out people's life savings, their money speculated away by banksters? That particular state of affairs persisted right up until 1933, when banks were closing all over America and people had lost everything that they had saved up. Then FDR put in something called FDIC, which makes sure that can't happen again. Plus Social Security, providing some cushion for older people who can no longer work but had lost all their money that they had put in banks.Or maybe you are pining for the era when it was a gamble even to buy food, because there was no food inspection? Oh, Boo Hoo, isn't that awful, people can no longer lose their life savings and have a few social cushions here and there against the inevitable vagaries of existence over which they have no control! What a horror! However can the poor Lolbertarian stand to live in such a cruel world of second handers? Where is John Galt to bore us with an infinite lecture?


Fuck off, Henry.

[Corona688]

We're kind of getting off topic here.

What exactly would privatizing marriage entail?

[Watser?]

Profits!

[ImGod]

We should be worried about the power of the Marriage Industrial Complex.

Wasteful, expensive one use dresses. (Say no to the dress)
Honeymoons
Receptions
Hideous bridesmaids dresses
Registries
The Church (one true and only of course)
....

Money down the drain for nothing to feed the ever growing marriage industry and their lobby.

Just shack up and pop out some kids, jeez.

[Henry Quirk]

"Fuck off, Henry."

You first, lady.

##

"We're kind of getting off topic here."

Nope. The topic is whatever comes to mind.

As I say: 'Lord knows I don't wanna sully someone else's precious thread with my shit, so (when I have a mind to post in this forum) I’ll confine myself to this thread.'

I'll post whatever I like here.

And (because I'm not selfish) you can play too!

[Crumb]

[erimir]

Shorter version of davidm:

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

america

It was the circumstance by which [a white man of means] could self-deliberate (rather than be deliberated by another). This circumstance was not equitable, enlightening, or fulfilling [for other people]. Simply: the door was opened and one was left to his [this pronoun is already right] own devices to navigate what he [sic] found on the other side. Win, lose: mostly (if not all) on you [or the fact that you're not a white man].

[Henry Quirk]

uh oh!

Snake Plissken...somebody get Snake Plissken.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

The 19th century in America, maybe? The era of black slavery, genocide against Native Americans, child labor, the Gilded Age where a tiny minority got rich and the rest of the urban masses labored in sweat shops without union protection, the era when periodic Panics, as they were called then, wiped out people's life savings, their money speculated away by banksters?

Jesus Christ, brah, calm down already. Yeah, sure, the lives of Gilded Age wage slaves routinely got destroyed through actions and circumstances wholly beyond their own control. But you know what else? At the very same time those very same people were 100% self-deliberating such that "[w]in, lose: mostly (if not all) on [them]."

That's not contradictory; it only LOOKS that way. What you're failing to take into account is the scientific, mathematical and undeniable fact that the Good Old Days (pbuh) were MAGICAL. Thus, all inconsistencies are apparent rather than real.

You know what else? There was no domestic violence or pedophilia in the Good Old Days (pbuh). That shit started only after we threw God out of public schools.

And if by chance some husband actually did beat his wife to death in the Good Old Days (pbuh) (lol right, never happened), the wife was was 100% self-deliberating such that "lose: mostly (if not all) on [her]." Damn harpy shouldn't have been 100% responsible for her own demise by nagging her poor, hard-working husband the instant he got home from the factory.

[Henry Quirk]

If only Snake Plissken were here.

[BrotherMan]

[Stephen Maturin]

[Henry Quirk]

Big Trouble in Little China, yes?

As I recall, a fun flick.

Demonic Asian Wizard, Intrepid Reporter Girl, Swaggering Hero Man and a host of supporting characters (Good Asian wizard, Sidekicks, Minions, etc.).

Jack Burton ain't no Snake Plissken, though.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

Big Trouble in Little China, yes?

As I recall, a fun flick.

Yes indeedy as to both.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

Jack Burton ain't no Snake Plissken, though.

Truer words have never been written.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

If only Snake Plissken were here.

If only he were here he would say/do what, exactly?

Those movies are before my time, old man.