The term "criminal" is a statist propaganda phrase. There are no such things as "criminals" or "crime," just like how there's no such thing as "hate speech."
Both conservatives and liberals need to deprogram themselves from believing "criminal" = bad person.
Edit: Criminals do exist, but "criminal" ≠ bad person. A "criminal" is just someone the state doesn't like, just like how "hate speech" is just speech leftists don't like. Of course, this doesn't mean that all "hate speech" is righteous speech or that all "criminals" are angels.
Both conservatives and liberals need to deprogram themselves from believing "criminal" = bad person.
Edit: Criminals do exist, but "criminal" ≠ bad person. A "criminal" is just someone the state doesn't like, just like how "hate speech" is just speech leftists don't like. Of course, this doesn't mean that all "hate speech" is righteous speech or that all "criminals" are angels.
👍3👎1
I strive to be truly consistent with my principles and not to bootlick the state when it suits me or my views.
If my enemy's rights get violated, I will defend them just like I wish to be defended when my rights become violated. There are no exceptions.
If my enemy's rights get violated, I will defend them just like I wish to be defended when my rights become violated. There are no exceptions.
👍2
Of course it's sad for the third-parties involved. Call me cynical, but this is a similar argument to justify reparations in my opinion.
I.e. (a: white people) should (b: pay) for (c: black people) because of (d: the injustices) (e: their ancestors) (f: perpetrated).
Transposed. (a: the building) should (b: be demolished) for (c: the parents) because of (d: the murder of their children) (e: someone who is not the building) (f: perpetrated).
It seems like an odd secular religious ritual that's not inferred from any religion. Also, it's at the taxpayers expense.
I.e. (a: white people) should (b: pay) for (c: black people) because of (d: the injustices) (e: their ancestors) (f: perpetrated).
Transposed. (a: the building) should (b: be demolished) for (c: the parents) because of (d: the murder of their children) (e: someone who is not the building) (f: perpetrated).
It seems like an odd secular religious ritual that's not inferred from any religion. Also, it's at the taxpayers expense.
You will eat bugs and you will ride the self driving taxis in the walled smart city and you will rent your home from Blackrock and you will pay your 90% tax rate and you will cheer for the Current Thing and you will believe in green energy and you will like it, comrade. And of you speak out, your ID will change to red and you won't be able to access your basic needs :)
🤮1
Anyone who thinks CBDCs will be Blockchain based are very sadly mistaken.
The whole point of a Blockchain is to validate transactions such that no currency is maliciously created or destroyed as per the law of conservation: (ΣRx = ΣTx - fees).
This process is enormously power consuming and will likely not be adopted by governments - aka the biggest malicious creator of currency.
My prediction is that CBDCs will be based on legacy ledgers used by banks to keep track of balances, transactions and Treasury bonds.
The whole point of a Blockchain is to validate transactions such that no currency is maliciously created or destroyed as per the law of conservation: (ΣRx = ΣTx - fees).
This process is enormously power consuming and will likely not be adopted by governments - aka the biggest malicious creator of currency.
My prediction is that CBDCs will be based on legacy ledgers used by banks to keep track of balances, transactions and Treasury bonds.
I don't see a winner in banning biological males from women's sports. The transgender cult simply lost to the bigger and far more dangerous cult of feminism.
If sports was logical and equal, men must necessarily compete against women in all sports and at all levels. Since men are stronger than women, it necessarily means women cannot compete in sports period, thus excluding women, which is fair.
The segregation of sports by biological sex should only occur in societies where feminism is rejected and women recognize the general superiority of the man.
If sports was logical and equal, men must necessarily compete against women in all sports and at all levels. Since men are stronger than women, it necessarily means women cannot compete in sports period, thus excluding women, which is fair.
The segregation of sports by biological sex should only occur in societies where feminism is rejected and women recognize the general superiority of the man.
👍1
Of course, the rules of sports ought to be determined by the capitalists responsible for the competition (if privately operated). Thus, it would be perfectly ethical for females to compete against transwomen (males) if the capitalist wants it that way.
Individuals can thus dissent by invoking their right to non-association by boycotting the competition. Or to invest in their own competition where biological sex is observed.
If the competition is funded by the state (shouldn't be), the "Occam's Razor" of (chromosomes -> sex) should be observed.
Individuals can thus dissent by invoking their right to non-association by boycotting the competition. Or to invest in their own competition where biological sex is observed.
If the competition is funded by the state (shouldn't be), the "Occam's Razor" of (chromosomes -> sex) should be observed.
👍1
"It's Dajooz, it's the Jooz"
Of course it's the Jews, but it takes a certain amount of mental illness to think killing babies is okay.
If the Jews told me to murder someone, and I went and murdered that person, it's my fault, not the Jew.
Of course it's the Jews, but it takes a certain amount of mental illness to think killing babies is okay.
If the Jews told me to murder someone, and I went and murdered that person, it's my fault, not the Jew.
Every time I look at Western governments what I see is like a garden of Eden, except there's a whole truckload of Eves continuously doing whatever the serpent tells them to do.
👍1