Lurker > Kenri

red sox 777 posted...

As far as I can tell, you didn't quite understand the part about frames of reference.

I mean, it is complete nonsense, so yeah.

But you didn't seem to have an issue with SEP's interpretation of it which still gets back to "they like change if it's the change they like"
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

No, Kenri, for whatever reason you don't seem to be understanding my posts.

red sox 777 posted...

Because conservatives don't like change. It's right in the name, conservative.

???

"don't like" is pretty clear, but apparently it's not what you actually meant? enlighten me
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

Who said conservatives say change is bad? I said that's what conservatives feel, and not usually on an intellectual level either.

you said they don't like it. they do like it. if you meant they "feel like they dislike change, conceptually, but in practice they actually like change just as much as anyone else, they're just self-righteous about it" you should have said that.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

He's trying to argue that people should be allowed to stick their fingers in their ears, scream "THIS IS 1950 AND THINGS ARE EXACTLY HOW THEY WERE IN 1950," and then complain if anything doesn't match 1950

i don't get why conservatives even try to maintain these dumb intellectual high grounds that just make zero sense. why not just say "change is good but some of the changes we've been making are bad" instead of claiming to hate change while also pushing for tons and tons of change.

#MakeChangeGreatAgain
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

That doesn't make it special. We live on Earth, it doesn't mean all places in the universe should be measured by their distance from Earth. Of course we can use Earth.....but we could use anywhere else too.

yikes, this sure is a response. do you have trouble interpreting highway signs too?


red sox 777 posted...

Someone can like change away from their reference frame......but then they are probably not conservative, at least the way I am using conservative.

but you're saying they like change to their frame of reference, which is still change
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

This assumes a frame of reference that the present is the state of no change.

the present is the part of time we're living in, so yeah, inherently so
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

Of course it does. How can you measure change without a frame of reference?

Will things be different if you go back to 1985 or 1950 or whatever? If so, that's change. If not, what the fuck is the point
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

Second point: That depends on your frame of reference by which you measure change.

It literally doesn't
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

Some conservatives want to go back to 1985. Others want to go to 1950. Still others want to go to 1925. Others want to go back to 1900. Others still want to go back to 1860.

There are even people who want to go back to the 7th Century. Maybe the Bronze Age!

Some conservatives are more conservative than others.

First, they want to go to imaginary versions of those periods that exist in only their heads.

Second, all of that implies massive, massive change.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

But this would be change

"It's not change, it's change back," the intellectually dishonest man replied.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

"pomp and circumstance and sense of awe", "look and act professionally", etc are all just code words for being white anyway.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I think there are a few specialty burger places that do it that way, but I can't imagine it would work for fast food burgers.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

Hilarious line from a CNN article about Trump's malicious Twitter use:

"I'm sure the Twitter team loathes how the product is being used by Trump," says one former Twitter executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

HAHAHAHAHA

But "if they suspend his account, they'll have to do this consistently with other harassment accounts, which is impossible."

This is their typical excuse for not regulating behavior towards other people enough.

Oh no! If they were to do the thing they should be doing, they'd have to do even more of the thing they should be doing! How... terrible...
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

ClyTheCool posted...

What if government banned the little cardboard sandwich boxes McDonald's puts it's burgers in? Would that be different from plastic bags?

I'm inclined to say "yes" because those are effectively soiled as soon as they're used (keep in mind the big pro-plastic bag argument of people re-using them), but I dunno. Different in what way?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I guess. It's not completely a weird special case, I already agreed that free delivery is similar. But I can't think of many cases where something is generally given away for free until the government forces you to charge for it, yeah.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

foolm0r0n posted...

Kenri posted...

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=plastic+bags

This is the dumbest thing you could've possibly posted. Smuffin tier analogy.

Show me where you can buy Amazon delivery boxes on Amazon. You're literally making my argument for me.

That's sort of a different situation since the box is non-optional 99% of the time and already used before it gets to you, while the bag really isn't. But you can still buy cardboard shipping boxes on Amazon, they just won't say "Amazon" on them.


foolm0r0n posted...

No, it has always been, and still is, about how you can't understand why banning plastic bags could possibly increase costs to a store. I'm trying a bunch of different angles to try to get you to understand but you can't for some reason.

This has literally not been in doubt to me since post #253 so if that's what we're arguing about then we're done here I guess.


foolm0r0n posted...

Like, possibly making profit on plastic bags after they are banned? Did you seriously think about that more than 1 second and still decide to post it?

You're losing it in other areas, obviously, but on that one transaction alone, it's likely you're selling a plastic bag for more than you bought it for. Are you doubting this?


foolm0r0n posted...

It's not magic. I'm explaining exactly why something that a store buys can end up not being a sold product to the final customer. It's just when it's waste.

Here's another angle:
You're a store. Each day you put your trash in the back, and the trash truck comes and takes it away. This service costs your $100/month.
Now, trash services are banned. You are no longer allowed to pay the trash truck $100/month to come get your trash.
Do your monthly expenses go up or down?

This is, uh, not a similar situation at all, but yes, they would immediately go down before then going way up because you'd have to devote manpower to removing your trash, which would be more expensive. Like what are you trying to prove here?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Axl_Rose_85 posted...

Brock Lesnar/Charlotte - WWE Championship

wouldn't this one just depend on the script?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

ClyTheCool posted...

You keep saying you dont understand it so it sure sounds like you don't understand it.

when have i said i don't understand it

other than post #252 where i didn't understand that specific phrasing until it was clarified for me by SmartMuffin in literally the next post
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Right, and I think I covered that in my next sentence about how realistically costs don't go down. But keep in mind this whole conversation started because I said I found something funny (not that I didn't understand it), and then became about the definition of a product. I really don't know why foolmo brought in the cost analysis as if it's relevant, but I thought I'd answer anyway in case it was leading somewhere.

Also plenty of places don't offer free delivery, and tbh I'd consider delivery, free or not, to be a product (insofar as services are counted as products at all). So same deal there. I GET it, but it's funny to think that costs would go UP if you stop giving something away for free!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

foolm0r0n posted...

Okay must be a local thing because I have literally never seen this

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=plastic+bags


foolm0r0n posted...

They are a product of the plastic bag factory to the store. They are not a product of the store, like ice or stamps. They don't sell plastic bags at the store. The 5-50 cents thing is a TAX on plastic bags. The store is taxed for each plastic bag they give out, and they pass it off onto the customer.

It doesn't magically become not a product when resold (or given away for free) by a retailer. It's a product either way.

And call it a tax if you want, I guess -- but cashiers definitely don't ask "Would you like to offset our plastic bag tax today?" It's a tax on the store end, not the consumer's, even if ultimately it's just being passed along.


foolm0r0n posted...

How about this:
Consider a store's monthly spend, which uses plastic bags. It's somehow exactly the same every single month.
Then plastic bags are banned. Does their their monthly spend go up or down and why?

All else the same, it should go down. They'll be spending less on plastic bags, because the cost to the consumer is higher, which drives down demand, so the store needs to stock less of them. (Plus, maybe they're actually making a profit on the ones they sell now, as opposed to an inherent loss when they were giving them out for free? Probably not but in theory it's possible.)

Realistically, not everything does stay the same. They only need a few people not shopping with them at all because of the lack of free bags to offset any benefits. But that's not what I'm arguing.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

foolm0r0n posted...

Literally no one does buy them. They take them for free and spend money and effort trashing or recycling them. Is this like a local thing? Do people really go and buy plastic bags where you're from?

You're talking nonsense. You can go into a store and buy a box of plastic bags, and after you pay for it they'll put it into another plastic bag for you. How is one a product and the other not?

And yes, in California a lot of stores will let you buy a plastic bag for a small charge (5-50 cents depending on its durability). "Would you like to buy any ice or stamps? Would you like to buy a bag?" Of course most people don't do it, because shockingly, it's not actually something most people need -- they can just carry their stuff, or use a cart, or use bags they brought. But most people don't buy the ice or stamps either, unless they really need to.

Anyway, I don't see how you can possibly argue that bags aren't a product and also that people NEED them. You're positing a demand and yet refusing to recognize that the market has created a product that satisfies that demand.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

If they had zero or less value no one would buy them, or even accept them for free. What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. It's not comparable to garbage/pollution except in the sense that it ultimately becomes those things, but so do most products that start out with some use and value.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I like that answer because it sounds exactly like the logic they might actually use.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Not sure why any conservative would want another civil war. Like do they not know how the first one went?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

...Of course they are? They're a thing that was produced and has monetary value. What else would they be?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Not_an_Owl posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Approval ratings are overrated. Trump never once beat Hillary on approval ratings and won the election.

hurr durr whats the electoral college hurr durr hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

A+ red sox impression


Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/880049704620494848

PAY YOUR INTERNET TAX AMAZON!

I...think he's trying to say that WaPo is the force behind Amazon not charging sales tax? Is that even still a thing?

But holy shit what a confusing sentence.

jesus christ our president is sounding more and more like a living markov chain every day
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I just like the idea that "you don't have to give this product away for free anymore" can possibly be considered a cost to retailers.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

BowserCuffs posted...

*exceptions including teenagers who, in many places, aren't required to be paid minimum wage anyways

I didn't know this, that's hella gross.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

In addition, there are economic costs of these policies, says Rozenksi. "It's the costs to jobs, the increased cost to retailers, the increased cost in taxes."

...how does banning plastic bags possibly increase cost to retailers?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i agree, but i also like how this is literally more libertarian than muffin's stance on borders >_>

I mean technically I'm an anarchist (...sort of) and he's gone all alt-right lately, so it makes sense!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

You know I almost added "this would be a great system to have in addition to our current one", so hey kudos on Canada for that.

My ideal immigration system is still "borders are immoral and you're not owned by where you happen to be born" but if this was a feasible change for the US I'd definitely take it!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Canada's immigration policy is definitely not the one the US should aim for, and I hesitate to call it smart either (ruthless is an apt word though).

If we're concerned about eliminating "dumb luck" in immigration policy, people need to realize that whether you're an immigrant or native born is entirely dumb luck itself. From there, I'm not sure why family reunification is an inferior metric to education.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

(Hint: no one believes specific promises by Trump).

yeah tell that to everyone who still expects a fucken wall
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I like that logic because it implies that Marxism is a radical rightist ideology
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Where fascism fits on the political compass is definitely open to debate. As is anarchy. As are a lot of things.

Really we should just stop pretending late 18th-century France's political spectrum is at all applicable to politics in a different country over 200 years later.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

So is it an issue with the AHCA in particular, or more of an issue where Obamacare changed the field enough that any sort of repeal will lead to massive community backlash/long term problems? If you don't mind me asking.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Peace___Frog posted...

Kenri posted...

they're also trying desperately to protect the profits of health insurance companies so i think you're just wrong here

No insurance company, at least in my area of the country, is happy with this arrangement.

Oh, well color me surprised. I guess they're just trying to screw over literally everyone then, which is honestly somewhat refreshing.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

They're things Republicans don't like.

they love every other sort of corporation that makes money by exploiting people, especially poor people, so that's kinda weird that this is apparently the one exception

they're also trying desperately to protect the profits of health insurance companies so i think you're just wrong here
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

Just give free coverage to those 22 million. Paid for with big new taxes on lattes, avocados, kale, brown rice, sushi, non-profit organizations other than religious ones, health insurance companies, public transit, and schools.

what do health insurance companies have in common with everything else listed here
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Pinocchio but everytime he lies his mouth gets more beak-ish
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

EmDubyaSee posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

MWC: "Resurrect Osama bin Laden!!!!!"

Seal Team 6.

Not Obama...


How DARE you try to discredit those brave men, beat we have, by giving credit to the (treasonous) worst we've had since the Civil War.

pretty sure it was a bullet that killed bin laden, not seal team 6

how dare you try to discredit that heroic piece of metal
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

God. None of the above. Probably HW I guess. It's definitely not Reagan or W.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

I guess the world has a higher opinion of the country than you do!

To be fair it would be hard for it to be lower (Jordan probably pulls it off though), I just didn't expect it to be this much higher!

GuessMyUserName posted...

When it comes to that, the votes become relative opinion. Obama comes off of 8 years of Bush, so Obama gets points for taking a better path. Obama pushes a lot of good that we're happy to see from the "leader of the free world", even if he still continues awful stuff we view as more "inevitable" from that position.

This makes a lot of sense yeah. I feel like it's the same with, like, Trudeau (and though it might be too early to really tell, Macron), but it's most obvious to me with Obama probably just cuz I'm an American.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Oh that explains a lot. I still feel like it's way too high though because like, regardless of how you feel about Obama as a person, I don't know why you'd fucking ever trust the president of the US to do the right thing for the world.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

SupremeZero posted...

What exactly do you think is the primary source of most of those countries exposure to Obama.

My primary source of exposure to any given used car salesman is talking to them about a used car, doesn't mean I trust what they say!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

Have you heard the man give a speech?

Yeah but the question wasn't asking about faith in a president's public speaking ability (though if it was it would COMPLETELY explain the 70 point difference between Obama and Trump lmao)
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

GuessMyUserName posted...

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/23153955/PG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-1.png

honestly the bigger question here is why the hell so many countries had so much faith in obama, like have they ever met the US before?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/879402801595633665

Spicer has this to say about our options

wow it would be great if he actually meant that
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

Well yeah, I was saying that the person with $200 is "winning" and has no incentive to buy insurance.

Post #314

it's easy to remember because it's the pi number
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

red sox 777 posted...

The median American household has net worth of around 100k IIRC. Health insurance costs, let's say, $10,000 a year for a median household. So, if your family goes 10 years without needing a lot of health costs, you can be twice as wealthy if you don't buy insurance. For that kind of money, it may be worth the risk. Because you're only really risking the 100k you have, and the amount you would intend to save in the future to pay to protect your credit.....it matters little whether you "owe" 50k or 500k after that.

there's a lot of assumptions and questionable math in here

to start with, if we're assuming the average household is worth 100k and incurs a 500k emergency debt then they can be on the hook for, uh, at least $100k, and possibly $500k, and possibly more than $500k because of interest

so like, that's a big difference from where we started, with paying $200 for $500k worth of services. now we're at "if they want to sue me for the well over $100k they can possibly recover, uh, guess i'm boned then"
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.