Did you and your Moroccan wife vote in the latest Canadian elections by chance?
Well your interest in her hasnāt exactly wanedā¦
Ill give her your best wishes. Maybe then you can continue fantasizing about her in private.
No, Iām just curious about the resident western philosopher and his exotic Moroccan wife wondering what that must be like. If you donāt want to say anything more on the subject that is fine.
We have our tensions. I was drawing runes on her neck one afternoon as she was half asleep and now Im branded āa radicalā.
But yeah Id appreciate if we can move on to another subject.
Fair enough. Did you vote for Justin Trudeau?
Not a very popular dude in my circles.
Well, at least you didnāt vote for Justin Trudeau where you got that going for you.
Canadian politics is weirder than I can understand. I have literally no clue what the hell is going on, and it seems no one else is either. No one reads papers, one of many things I like about Quebec
Yeah.
Strangely, the elections were actually a blow to those faggots. Trumpian conservatives are gaining ground quick, Trudidiots lost a lot of seats. The sad thing about the Quebec wing of this awakening is that they are turning out to be even douchier than the commies about the English language ban. But it is forgiven. At least they are dropping half-measures which tension makes things a lot more poisonous. Clear decisions, committed choices. The world thirsts for them, and Trump country is delivering.
We Canadian right-wingers are happy with how it turned out. Alberta is damn near ready to secede.
Just in case you didnāt catch it, Quebec is now ruled by a Trumpian party born about 5 years ago. In one of those sweet twists of destiny, pot was finally legalized a few days before they came into power. Sometimes things work out just right.
Not, listen, I was always agianst pot legalization because I am pretty convinced it will Borgize the underworld, which is so precious. But all in all, better not so many people go to jail for selling and smoking reefers.
Still, there is only so much you can do in Commieda. I am slightly annoyed they have not yet reduced taxes. Itās robbery, 30% is usury under any sane law.
Not only does this premise commit the personal incredulity fallacy, it also explicitly ties the immaterial quality of creativity to material ownership.
The latter needs justification, which may well be attainable, but just because you or any reader has never heard of a socialist factory or socialist-anything-creative - doesnāt mean they havenāt ever existed or could exist.
If there were some reason for creativity to necessarily only arise through personal ownership of the means to realise oneās creativity, then the incredulity fallacy could be averted since it would objectively be the case and not just be down to personal experience. Not physically creating something is not a reliable indicator of the potential to create given the means to do so.
Is it possible to have a realistic idea and lack the means to realise it?
Is it possible to realise a creative idea using property claimed by others?
In both cases the answer should clearly be āyesā.
Itās also perfectly possible to own property and to never personally have a creative impulse whatsoever about its usage.
This means that creativity is completely independent of economic structure and ownership ideology.
Ergo, socialist or capitalist creativity is no more valid an association than apple creativity or speeding creativity.
40 hours a week to come up with a product or 168 can be as true as you claim, yet itās a question of motivation and possibility. Who wants to be creative and who can? Can someone who doesnāt own their means of production create and will someone who does own their means of production necessarily create? Will one create more than another?
You need to address creativity in itself long before you address the psychology of motivation, and this long before you think about generalised economic necessities for fostering said motivations.
Perhaps you already have, but you completely neglected to go through a thorough and comprehensive methodology for arriving at such a conclusion anywhere ever on this board.
Ambition and fairness - sure, discuss.
Your willingness to jump to conclusions assuming all the groundwork, at least without reference to every single logical step along the way, presents more yourself as religious - delivering ārevealed truthā - long before any accusations of religiosity in others could ever hit home.
Overcome the hypocrite in yourself before you accuse it in others. Pain be damned.
The socialist Chinese communists apparently bought off a majority of what use to be American capitalist factories and manufacturing centers.
Itās interesting in the United States right now, we condemn communists yet at the same time want them to keep buying our agricultural equipment, livestock, or crops because without that our so called capitalist economy would tank.
ā¦ adding to what sil explained above, hereās a much faster refutation of that nonsense about āsocialist creative nothingā or whatever it was.
nothing ever thought of or invented materialized as an idea in someoneās head because they thought first āif i come up with a good idea i could make money off it.ā that consideration comes later, and has nothing to do as a stimulus for a particular idea.
think about the senselessness of this statement: i just conceived of a combustible engine because there was something which wasnāt yet conceived that, if produced, would bring me a lot of money. therefore i wouldnāt have thought of the combustible engine unless i would have been able to make money from it.
Iām an economic socialist within national socialism where I donāt have a problem with that line of thinking at all.
Iām a big critic of crony capitalism and the equivalent of todayās dumb mentally challenged libertarian capitalists.
For me western civilization needs a socialist economic model to bring us away from crony capitalism that is destroying our societies.
Where I disagree with todayās modern socialists is Marxism, race, culture, sex, and democracy because while Iām an economic socialist Iām also a cultural conservative. Iām also an autocrat meaning in my ideal society there is no democracy, voting, or popular assembly other than the workings of the inner party.
To understand my position or line of thinking is to understand economic socialism, totalitarianism, autocracy, racial identity, cultural conservatism, and nationalism.
The best way to understand my current ideological disposition it would be like combining Adolf Hitlerās nationalism ideals within Stalinās economic model adding in Mussoliniās state controlled corporatism guided by Augustus Caesarās autocratic platform. Throw in some Oswald Mosley, Oswald Spengler, and Otto Strasser for a philosophical social political foundation.
Youāre right.
Fallacy of reverse causation right there, I missed it.
Another one to add to the pile, thanks.
Joker, now youāre just opening up the āNo True Scotsmanā fallacy for him: āthe socialist Chinese communists are capitalists donāt you know!?ā
āCherry pickingā their capitalist associations can be attributed to all their successes and their communist associations with their failures.
Nobody here is a āprogressiveā in the lame āletās all pretend weāre all equalā way.
Nobody is the same, we all know it: let there be variation.
As for autocracy thatās pretty open/shut. One person has no means to be kept in check by virtue of them being the one person in charge.
We need decentralisation, which the market ātries to provideā. Only a truly democratic state, consisting of the public, thatās actually beholden to itself: āthe publicā avoids monopoly or oligopoly like all our systems so far, and all capitalist, āsocialistā or ācommiunistā regimes have been so far.
If you want to be elitist, I recommend scientists. But elitism inherently leads to the exclusion of the majority who do not meet the elite standards so as to understand whether science (or otherwise) is being conducted properly. Corruption may occur.
Yet at the same time, important things, which are just as open to the qualified as the unqualified, would converge to arbitrary mob rule.
The aim is a self-regulating mechanism like the āmarketā attempts to be, but we need something less dumb.
It wouldnāt be entirely elitist, like a constitutional monarchy I just transform it into a charter or constitutional dictatorship. The people would be well taken care of with economic socialism where social programs and a nice public welfare would exist. The people would be well taken care of in their needs that they wonāt even care or notice that theyāre living under a dictatorship.
The only dictatorships that fail are the ones where a majority of people are not happy, to have an effective dictatorship is to have a society where a majority of peopleās happiness is of great importance.
Actually I was trying to illustrate the hypocrisy and irony of a nation that is supposedly capitalist having to rely on a socialist or communist nation for international trade. Itās pretty hilarious and mind blowing.