Light @light@qoto.org

noc.social is down

@clawfulneutral @palestine
I find it hard to see exactly what nuanced argument she has for Israel that those images of carnage don't adequately/logically address (and with social media, nuance often falls by the wayside).
If she did, then maybe I would understand her view of them as emotional manipulation (or whatever it is she thinks they are) that needs to be kept away from children until they are old enough to see through it.
What these schools should be doing, if they really want to make sure children understand the issue, is to have both sides come to the classroom to speak. But she probably doesn't want that lol.

@light@noc.social @hamid @erin
>enjoy your block for attempting to justify the gestapo
I was not, but go right ahead my friend. All you've done is proven that you are a dimwit who hates nuance, and such people aren't worth talking to.

@N33R
>Matthew 19:12 (NIV)
>For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
>Eunuchs supposedly did not generally have loyalties to the military, the aristocracy, or a family of their own (having neither offspring nor in-laws, at the very least). They were thus seen as more trustworthy and less interested in establishing a private dynasty. Because their condition usually lowered their social status, they could also be easily replaced or killed without repercussion.

Why anyone would identify with this is beyond me.

@light@noc.social @lmgenealogy @juliusgoat.bsky.social @kenwhite.bsky.social
"""

Precisely because Rand views welfare programs like Social Security as legalized plunder, she thinks the only condition under which it is moral to collect Social Security is if one “regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism” (emphasis hers). The seeming contradiction that only the opponent of Social Security has the moral right to collect it dissolves, she argues, once you recognize the crucial difference between the voluntary and the coerced.

Social Security is not voluntary. Your participation is forced through payroll taxes, with no choice to opt out even if you think the program harmful to your interests. If you consider such forced “participation” unjust, as Rand does, the harm inflicted on you would only be compounded if your announcement of the program’s injustice precludes you from collecting Social Security.

This being said, your moral integrity does require that you view the funds only as (partial) restitution for all that has been taken from you by such welfare schemes and that you continue, sincerely, to oppose the welfare state.

In contrast, the advocate of Social Security on Rand’s view is not the victim but the supporter of legalized plunder, whether he realizes it or not. This fact morally disqualifies him from accepting the spoils “redistributed” by the welfare state.

Rand’s position on the welfare state is no doubt controversial. But for critics to dismiss it as hypocrisy is a confession of ignorance or worse.
"""

@ontheidiots.bsky.social Source?

@light@noc.social @condret
My position:

There is a difference between claim rights and liberty rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_rights_and_liberty_rights ). Trans rights should be the latter, not the former. You have no claim on my worldview, philosophy, or sense of reality; only on yours and those you manage to non-violently persuade to accept your beliefs. You only have the liberty to consider yourself whatever gender you wish, transition, cross-dress, and associate with people who won't misgender you or whatever.

Similarly, people who don't buy into the transgender worldview (which includes, but is not limited to, myself) do not have a claim on what other people do with their bodies (except perhaps their young and vulnerable children), clothing, words, or anything else that is theirs. However, we do have the liberty of speech (but ofc everyone else also has the liberty not to listen).

@hj @SuperDicq @light@noc.social

>Who are the shareholders? Rich people who can afford to buy shares, NOT customers or people interested in company's actual product.
Sounds like a great argument for co-operatives.

A company (as opposed to a non-profit) is always going to be owned by people who care about profit (even if it's a co-op). I still don't understand what difference it makes whether the business is owned by a closed group of, idk, the founder, their family, and friends or an open group of anyone with enough money to pay for stock.

If it's, say, a customer co-op though, then it should act in the interests of customers.

I don't really understand what democracy has to do with it. Is your claim that more people making decisions makes it worse? How? Either way it's orthogonal to your argument that the profit motive is a problem.