Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[oggsmash]

  I find it interesting I saw a clip of the Phizer CEO saying he would not get the shot, since he is 59 and in good health.  I think that says all that needs to be said.

The CEO of Pfizer is Albert Bourla, who got his second shot back in March 2021.

https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/executives

https://twitter.com/albertbourla/status/1369734954498818052?lang=en

I think you might be referring to the December 2020 CNBC interview where he said that he wasn't going to "cut the line" to get his shot ahead of other people because he was in good health, but that was a matter of prioritizing the people who should receive the shot first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6O6FqYYImk

  I am referring to that.  His stance at 59 said all that needs to be said.

[oggsmash]

No Mistwell I want you ban because you did FAR MORE than just give a opinion. 

Banning - the first tool of the fascists.  Of course, it means that you're promoting cancel culture.  You could just...address the lies.

Anyway, back on topic, my mind was just blown.

Apparently - and I am not making this us - the same people who won't get a vaccine in part because it isn't approved are taking horse de-worming medication to combat COVID.  While that already seems crazy, they're demanding that legislators get it approved for use in people to make getting it easier - you know, even though it hasn't been tested in people for these purposes.

  Seems it is also the first tool of Communists.  Seems it is pretty much the first tool of all totalitarians.  Do you think facists are somehow worse than communists?

[deadDMwalking]

  Seems it is also the first tool of Communists.  Seems it is pretty much the first tool of all totalitarians.  Do you think facists are somehow worse than communists?

This is a fun question. 

Sure, I think that fascists are worse than communists.  Understanding that communism is an economic theory that people should own the means of production to ensure that everyone reaps the benefits of economic growth, I find it generally a well-meaning but deeply flawed institution.  Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong, but at least it is understandable.  Fascism on the contrary is predicated on the idea of hierarchies of value, usually putting men and certain races in positions of power regardless of their fitness for the role.  While societies under both systems of government have been failures, I think the WELL-INTENTIONED failure is better than the EVIL-INTENTIONED failure.  Don't you? 

[Shasarak]

At least fascists got the trains running on time.

[Pat]

This is a fun question. 

Sure, I think that fascists are worse than communists.  Understanding that communism is an economic theory that people should own the means of production to ensure that everyone reaps the benefits of economic growth, I find it generally a well-meaning but deeply flawed institution.  Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong, but at least it is understandable.  Fascism on the contrary is predicated on the idea of hierarchies of value, usually putting men and certain races in positions of power regardless of their fitness for the role.  While societies under both systems of government have been failures, I think the WELL-INTENTIONED failure is better than the EVIL-INTENTIONED failure.  Don't you?

Absolutely not. If the outcomes are the same, all the good intentions do is provide cover. That allows failure after failure, making the end result far worse than some hypothetical evil-intentioned failure. The road to hell is paved with good intentions not evil intentions, because only the facade of good intentions provide enough of an excuse to justify real evil.

Though I never understood the argument that communists are well intentioned. The whole premise behind communism[1] is taking things from others, under the assumption that the person doing the taking knows better. It's not just raw arrogance, it requires believing that the bulk of humanity is subhuman and unfit to run their own lives. That makes it monstrous, not well-intentioned.

[1] Here I'm referring to the many varieties of Marxism, and treating communism and socialism as interchangable, as Marx did in his own works. Kropotkinism and some other strains of anarcho-communist thought don't involve a central authority seizing control, but they're marginal strains. And the Leninesque distinction that reserves the word communism only for Marx's 4th stage is largely irrelevant, because even ardent Marxists admit the stateless society can only be reached by passing through a stage where a central government takes control of everything, provide no explanation for how that society can be reached (they claim that people must be transformed, and can't understand it until it's on the verge of occurring, so any theorizing today about how it could happen is invalid), and place it in the far future (Lenin said 1,000 years).

[moonsweeper]

No Mistwell I want you ban because you did FAR MORE than just give a opinion. 

Banning - the first tool of the fascists.  Of course, it means that you're promoting cancel culture.  You could just...address the lies.

Anyway, back on topic, my mind was just blown.

Apparently - and I am not making this us - the same people who won't get a vaccine in part because it isn't approved are taking horse de-worming medication to combat COVID.  While that already seems crazy, they're demanding that legislators get it approved for use in people to make getting it easier - you know, even though it hasn't been tested in people for these purposes.

Now you are just showing complete medical ignorance...

Ivermectin is approved for humans, horse deworming is just one of its other uses.  (ninja'd by Pat)
My dog got the same antibiotic prescribed for him a few weeks ago as I did early this year (Amoxicillan).
How long was aspirin used for blood pressure issues/heart attack prevention before it was 'approved' for the purpose?



...but then again, what should we expect from someone who came up with this gem...

  Seems it is also the first tool of Communists.  Seems it is pretty much the first tool of all totalitarians.  Do you think facists are somehow worse than communists?

This is a fun question. 

Sure, I think that fascists are worse than communists.  Understanding that communism is an economic theory that people should own the means of production to ensure that everyone reaps the benefits of economic growth, I find it generally a well-meaning but deeply flawed institution.  Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong, but at least it is understandable.  Fascism on the contrary is predicated on the idea of hierarchies of value, usually putting men and certain races in positions of power regardless of their fitness for the role.  While societies under both systems of government have been failures, I think the WELL-INTENTIONED failure is better than the EVIL-INTENTIONED failure.  Don't you?

Cause everybody knows ole Adolf's 9 million tally for his camps is the world record holder...oh wait...
What about Mao and the USSR?

Never mind.  I figured it out. 
What you are saying is that the 120 million exterminated is ok compared to the 9 million exterminated because the communists were 'WELL-INTENTIONED'.

My bad...

[oggsmash]

  Seems it is also the first tool of Communists.  Seems it is pretty much the first tool of all totalitarians.  Do you think facists are somehow worse than communists?

This is a fun question. 

Sure, I think that fascists are worse than communists.  Understanding that communism is an economic theory that people should own the means of production to ensure that everyone reaps the benefits of economic growth, I find it generally a well-meaning but deeply flawed institution.  Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is still wrong, but at least it is understandable.  Fascism on the contrary is predicated on the idea of hierarchies of value, usually putting men and certain races in positions of power regardless of their fitness for the role.  While societies under both systems of government have been failures, I think the WELL-INTENTIONED failure is better than the EVIL-INTENTIONED failure.  Don't you?

   I rate em on body counts, intentions mean jack shit.  I rate things on results, and results alone, good intentions pave a path to hell.   I think ANYONE with a brain should rate things on results, not intentions.  So no, I think body count matters more, and communism has a MUCH larger body count.

[deadDMwalking]

It's hard to make the claim that the Soviet Union or China were ever Communist as defined by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.  Quite clearly, the apparatus of the State never 'withered away'.  However, we do know that some amount of collective ownership has been fine.  Even our liberal democracies founded on the principles of free enterprise and capitalism are actually mixed - we allow private ownership but also allow government to intervene in economic activities to achieve social aims and for the public good. 

Are there people here that are ready to tell me that the government shouldn't regulate Facebook and/or shouldn't have the power to break it up? 

[oggsmash]

It's hard to make the claim that the Soviet Union or China were ever Communist as defined by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.  Quite clearly, the apparatus of the State never 'withered away'.  However, we do know that some amount of collective ownership has been fine.  Even our liberal democracies founded on the principles of free enterprise and capitalism are actually mixed - we allow private ownership but also allow government to intervene in economic activities to achieve social aims and for the public good. 

Are there people here that are ready to tell me that the government shouldn't regulate Facebook and/or shouldn't have the power to break it up?

  Dude, slide those goal posts all you want.  If you keep killing people on the scale of millions at a time with good intentions, I hate to tell you, you are the villain.   Because you sold the wolf tickets with Marx and constantly say, well it was not the REAL communism....every fucking time, sooner or later people have to get just a little smarter.

[deadDMwalking]

   I rate em on body counts, intentions mean jack shit.  I rate things on results, and results alone, good intentions pave a path to hell.   I think ANYONE with a brain should rate things on results, not intentions.  So no, I think body count matters more, and communism has a MUCH larger body count.

You mean absolute numbers dead?  Or number of deaths per capita?  Or per capita per year?

Do you count deaths of their own people the same or differently to deaths of other people? 

How many Americans were killed in wars with Communists compared to Fascists?  Does that factor into the decision at all?

If a society executes 1% of the population annually (maybe for real crimes that carry the death penalty elsewhere), it's clear that a larger country (like China) will kill a lot more people than a smaller country (like Germany).  Likewise, a regime that has been in power for 50+ years killing 1% of the population will kill far more people than a regime that has been in power for 5 years killing the same percentage. 

So let's not compare apples and oranges.  If you're going to base it on body count, which bodies do you count? 


Edit - Let me put it another way.  I keep hearing things like 'the only good Communist is a dead Communist', but nobody gives Communists credit for killing more Communists than a single Capitalist ever did.

[moonsweeper]

It's hard to make the claim that the Soviet Union or China were ever Communist as defined by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.  Quite clearly, the apparatus of the State never 'withered away'.  However, we do know that some amount of collective ownership has been fine.  Even our liberal democracies founded on the principles of free enterprise and capitalism are actually mixed - we allow private ownership but also allow government to intervene in economic activities to achieve social aims and for the public good. 

Are there people here that are ready to tell me that the government shouldn't regulate Facebook and/or shouldn't have the power to break it up?

  Dude, slide those goal posts all you want.  If you keep killing people on the scale of millions at a time with good intentions, I hate to tell you, you are the villain.   Because you sold the wolf tickets with Marx and constantly say, well it was not the REAL communism....every fucking time, sooner or later people have to get just a little smarter.

Hey ogg, check the timestamp on my message....ROFLMAO

Can I get my 10 internet bucks now...

[oggsmash]

   I rate em on body counts, intentions mean jack shit.  I rate things on results, and results alone, good intentions pave a path to hell.   I think ANYONE with a brain should rate things on results, not intentions.  So no, I think body count matters more, and communism has a MUCH larger body count.

You mean absolute numbers dead?  Or number of deaths per capita?  Or per capita per year?

Do you count deaths of their own people the same or differently to deaths of other people? 

How many Americans were killed in wars with Communists compared to Fascists?  Does that factor into the decision at all?

If a society executes 1% of the population annually (maybe for real crimes that carry the death penalty elsewhere), it's clear that a larger country (like China) will kill a lot more people than a smaller country (like Germany).  Likewise, a regime that has been in power for 50+ years killing 1% of the population will kill far more people than a regime that has been in power for 5 years killing the same percentage. 

So let's not compare apples and oranges.  If you're going to base it on body count, which bodies do you count? 


Edit - Let me put it another way.  I keep hearing things like 'the only good Communist is a dead Communist', but nobody gives Communists credit for killing more Communists than a single Capitalist ever did.

  I like total numbers.   I count the people killed by the good/evil intentioned government at hand.  Even that is perspective, so you really need to go full weasel here.

[oggsmash]

It's hard to make the claim that the Soviet Union or China were ever Communist as defined by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.  Quite clearly, the apparatus of the State never 'withered away'.  However, we do know that some amount of collective ownership has been fine.  Even our liberal democracies founded on the principles of free enterprise and capitalism are actually mixed - we allow private ownership but also allow government to intervene in economic activities to achieve social aims and for the public good. 

Are there people here that are ready to tell me that the government shouldn't regulate Facebook and/or shouldn't have the power to break it up?

  Dude, slide those goal posts all you want.  If you keep killing people on the scale of millions at a time with good intentions, I hate to tell you, you are the villain.   Because you sold the wolf tickets with Marx and constantly say, well it was not the REAL communism....every fucking time, sooner or later people have to get just a little smarter.

Hey ogg, check the timestamp on my message....ROFLMAO

Can I get my 10 internet bucks now...

  I will wire them to you via astropathic transmission.  Expect them in the next 1-10000000000 days.

[oggsmash]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

― C. S. Lewis

[Pat]

It's hard to make the claim that the Soviet Union or China were ever Communist as defined by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.  Quite clearly, the apparatus of the State never 'withered away'.  However, we do know that some amount of collective ownership has been fine.  Even our liberal democracies founded on the principles of free enterprise and capitalism are actually mixed - we allow private ownership but also allow government to intervene in economic activities to achieve social aims and for the public good. 

Are there people here that are ready to tell me that the government shouldn't regulate Facebook and/or shouldn't have the power to break it up?

They both fit Marx's 3rd stage. That they didn't reach the 4th stage of Marx's history is because it's impossible. It's a pipe dream that will never be achieved. Marx was very specific that the 4th stage couldn't be defined, until we achieved it. He did this to separate his "scientific" socialism from the utopian socialists who preceded him, who made very specific claims about how the final utopian stage could be achieved, and what it would be like when it happened. This led to their being discredited, because they did things like claim the lions will lay down with the lambs, and new moons will appear in the sky, and other fanciful nonsense. Marx hit upon a brilliant rhetorical evade that avoided that problem. By claiming it was inevitable, but unknowable, he forestalled any concrete speculation along those lines, preventing his new version of socialism from being mocked because it predicted outlandish specifics. By the same token, it also allowed him to dismiss any critics who wanted to know exactly how it would come about, by just stating that humanity would have to advance before the process could be understood. It's basically the Southpark Underpants Gnome argument. Marx wasn't proposing anything real, he was being unrealistically utopian but refused to be pinned down on the topic.

So they're real socialism, and pretending otherwise is just an attempt to avoid responsibility.