Tariffs, but not. Foxholes.

Mr. G said:
I was interested in discussing tariffs.

Than I was more interested in another subject.

If you're in a foxhole on an active battlefield, explosions all around, with another person you know you don't politically agree with, and an active grenade roles into the foxhole; would you fall atop your the grenade to protect them from the blast, or would you role them on top of you and let them take the blast?

Shrapnel leaves a signature.

So do actions.
Click to expand...
Tarifs will make cost of everything go UP ,its just a TAX on consumers importers have to pay and to make profits pass onto buyers.
And no it wont bring jobs back from other countries as Trampy claims.
Sadly many people are too dense to comprehend this thnx to our failed Education system

Watch Inside China business
 
Mr. G said:
I was interested in discussing tariffs.

Than I was more interested in another subject.

If you're in a foxhole on an active battlefield, explosions all around, with another person you know you don't politically agree with, and an active grenade roles into the foxhole; would you fall atop your the grenade to protect them from the blast, or would you role them on top of you and let them take the blast?

Shrapnel leaves a signature.

So do actions.
Click to expand...
Geeze, Louise !
Nobody in their right mind "throws themselves on top of the grenade".

You grab the damned thing and try to throw it back !

It might still blow up and kill you, but at least you tried to take out the S.O.B. who threw it in the first place.

As to tariffs... ...they somehow seem to me like the "sweet, old fashioned notions" of a bygone epoch.
 
You folks do know that this thread was a honeypot?

Pinball0000: "He got through NASA entrance exams or something, apparently. I doubt that."

Back in the late 80's, I earned NASA's certifications to possess and interact with moon samples.

Another nice try fail.
 
Pinball1970 said:
I thought only Brits would get some of those jokes.

My lack of Latin alas, is real. Outside of selected Latin binomials for terrestrial organisms, anatomy and disease, I am a linguistic pauper in this ancient tongue.
If I was a student in Washington DC I would write in letters six feet high, "Trump go home!" but I don't know the imperative.

Praeses Trump domum ite!?

Domus exiret?
Click to expand...
Domui ite, perhaps, (dative of domus, meaning to or for a house)? But my Latin is very rusty indeed.

Perhaps one could go further and say "Ite et resemine!"
 
Ken Fabian said:
As an aside I don't like any kind of 'good if they were dead' type rhetoric, not from people who's politics I agree with, not from people I disagree with. Not at all. It isn't necessary and detracts from any arguments attempting to be based in ethics. I don't want fascists dead, I want them to have no power to do harm to others.
Click to expand...
From a deontological ethics view, it is unambiguously true that the political killing of fascists is wrong. Kant got this worked out pretty well, back in the day. On a more personal level, e.g. fascists breaking down your door to murder the family, the consequentialist ethics would push into the foreground - as a simple matter of saving innocent lives, protecting yourselves wouid not be wrong and you would be ethically justified in using lethal force.
 
"Ite domum" , maybe, since its case is accusative (iirc). The "to" is implied. Home is the object of an action, ergo accusative.

OTOH, go is an intransitive verb, so technically does not have an object. Home, in this idiom, is like an adverb of place. e.g. go west. So, IDK if it's domum, domus, or something else.
 
Last edited:
TheVat said:
"Ite domum" , maybe, since its case is accusative (iirc). The "to" is implied. Home is the object of an action, ergo accusative.

OTOH, go is an intransitive verb, so technically does not have an object. Home, in this idiom, is like an adverb of place. e.g. go west. So, IDK if it's domum, domus, or something else.
Click to expand...
Although....

 
TheVat said:
From a deontological ethics view, it is unambiguously true that the political killing of fascists is wrong. Kant got this worked out pretty well, back in the day. On a more personal level, e.g. fascists breaking down your door to murder the family, the consequentialist ethics would push into the foreground - as a simple matter of saving innocent lives, protecting yourselves wouid not be wrong and you would be ethically justified in using lethal force.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the rhetoric, to hate speech and to the (in my view) far too casual popular use and tolerance of 'wish they were dead/just kill them' type language. Humans can see harsh treatment including the most horrific violence as gratifying so long as we think the victim deserves it, especially when motivated by hate - but feel like that without any requirement to investigate actual criminality or weigh any evidence or have a trial.

Of course when it comes to defending ourselves, individually or as a community - and especially "in the heat", motivated by immediate and credible fear - it can be reasonable and necessary to take lives. As a quick and final fix for societal problems "just kill them" can give a lot of immediate satisfaction in the perpetrators but leaves a lot to be desired as a lasting fix; that level of hate and inability to tolerate 'others' is a very serious societal problem.
 
billvon said:
Thank you for the refreshing honesty in admitting you are a troll!
Click to expand...
I've several times herein stated, quite openly, I'm a troll amidst the troll-able.

"Troll" has a variety of possible definitions.

I come with a warning label. You can see me coming.

--G
 
Mr. G said:
I come with a warning label. You can see me coming.
Click to expand...
maga_morons_are_governing_america_embroidered_baseball_cap-r8dda1466ef394672b62d2c6bfd2c5855_65f3y_8byvr_644.webp
 
TheVat said:
From a deontological ethics view, it is unambiguously true that the political killing of fascists is wrong. Kant got this worked out pretty well, back in the day. On a more personal level, e.g. fascists breaking down your door to murder the family, the consequentialist ethics would push into the foreground - as a simple matter of saving innocent lives, protecting yourselves wouid not be wrong and you would be ethically justified in using lethal force.
Click to expand...
The problem is that political killings aren't necessarily easy to distinguish from killings in self defense (or defense of others), and often the real perpetrators of violence enlist the less fortunate to do their bidding. For that matter, very people are entirely consistent either in their sanctioning or condemnation of propaganda of the deed. Consider the public response to Luigi Mangione--a lot of support for his actions from a rather disparate bunch of people. Were we not presently governed by fascists, that might have spawned some meaningful action on the legislative level and so forth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top