x
Click to expand

cabbagemayhem

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 30
Consoles Owned: PC
Video Games Played: Star Citizen, Arma, Tribes, Falcon BMS
Interests: Business, adventuring
Date Signed Up:2/19/2011
Last Login:3/31/2015
Location:Oklahoma
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#9370
Highest Content Rank:#1878
Highest Comment Rank:#1634
Content Thumbs: 6147 total,  6610 ,  463
Comment Thumbs: 4512 total,  6943 ,  2431
Content Level Progress: 12% (12/100)
Level 160 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 161 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 11% (11/100)
Level 243 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 244 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:1
Content Views:182800
Times Content Favorited:433 times
Total Comments Made:4408
FJ Points:10579
Favorite Tags: chan appendix (2)

Funny Pictures

1 2 3 > [ 14 ]

YouTube Videos

latest user's comments

#81781 - Anti-missile technology can't obsolete nukes. Nukes can be del…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #81783 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
True, but I still think marinepenguin is right, more advanced weaponry will make them outdated.
#81780 - Hah, that's a good one. Yeah, I'm going to throw my pistol int… 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... +1
#81778 - Comment deleted 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#81777 - Comment deleted 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#81768 - I don't think he's against boycotting, he just thinks … 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#81764 - Okay, but then I can reword it to exclude effeminates and gays…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #81766 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
What I'm basically trying to say is that this law discriminates, and this sort of discrimination is against international trading standards, international human right charters, and is probably also a violation of gay Americans' constitutional rights. Why anyone would support a law like this is beyond me.
I won't bother commenting on the blatant hypocrisy in that he believes that the free market powers should and will fix it all, but when costumers start to boycot for reasons he does not like, its suddenly wrong.
#81768 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
Thomas Sowell Dismantles Egalitarianism (Frances Fox Piven Edition) I don't think he's against boycotting, he just thinks they're being foolish for boycotting Indiana.

Discrimination is typically bad, but discriminating who you give your money to is not a violation of any trading standards, human rights charters, or the U.S. constitution. Actually, the opposite is true: forcing transactions to occur that otherwise would not is a violation of all three.

Fortunately, businesses that discriminate are already penalized in the market without government having to do anything. They have to pay a cost if they want to discriminate, so long as the market is free. But, anti-discrimination laws can actually reduce and eliminate the market penalties against discriminatory businesses, and even be discriminatory themselves. Watch the video kanadetenshi posted, or this one.
#81762 - One FJ star for sale for 100 FJ points to anyone whose alias b…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #81763 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
What you are saying is not in conflict with what I am saying.
Basically, they're saying that they want to sell, but not to homos.
So two guys walk up to a salesman and want to take up his offer. He refuses, stating he thinks they're gay. Now, the only way for the salesman to legitimately refuse to sell, would be for the two guys to actually be gay. Should this go to court, it would result in the couple stating wether or not they're gay. What I am arguing, is that it is a clear violation of the individual's privacy. Companies being able to refuse to sell to gay couples, would require them to know that they're actually gay. And that is none of the companies' business.
#81764 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
Okay, but then I can reword it to exclude effeminates and gays. It doesn't make much difference if you state the exception in the advertisement or at the cash register.
User avatar #81766 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
What I'm basically trying to say is that this law discriminates, and this sort of discrimination is against international trading standards, international human right charters, and is probably also a violation of gay Americans' constitutional rights. Why anyone would support a law like this is beyond me.
I won't bother commenting on the blatant hypocrisy in that he believes that the free market powers should and will fix it all, but when costumers start to boycot for reasons he does not like, its suddenly wrong.
#81768 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
Thomas Sowell Dismantles Egalitarianism (Frances Fox Piven Edition) I don't think he's against boycotting, he just thinks they're being foolish for boycotting Indiana.

Discrimination is typically bad, but discriminating who you give your money to is not a violation of any trading standards, human rights charters, or the U.S. constitution. Actually, the opposite is true: forcing transactions to occur that otherwise would not is a violation of all three.

Fortunately, businesses that discriminate are already penalized in the market without government having to do anything. They have to pay a cost if they want to discriminate, so long as the market is free. But, anti-discrimination laws can actually reduce and eliminate the market penalties against discriminatory businesses, and even be discriminatory themselves. Watch the video kanadetenshi posted, or this one.
#81760 - Yes, you can. Neither party has made any commitment, and no &q…  [+] (6 new replies) 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #81761 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
International trade standards clearly states, that as soon as an offer makes the buyer interested, it's prohibited to:
a: withdraw the offer
b: change any terms in the offer
The bond has nothing to do with any transactions being made, it's purely the interest from the offer-reciever that matters.

Lets take an example: A hotel extends an offer on renting a room. A gay couple approaches and takes up the offer. The hotel manager denies this, saying that he has indeed put forward an offer, but he does not want to sell to that exact person. As this not civil-trading but business-to-customer, what the hotel manager does is indeed a violation of CISG and pretty much all trading rules in most Western countries.
#81762 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
One FJ star for sale for 100 FJ points to anyone whose alias begins with a letter between A and M. I do not have to withdraw the offer, and I do not have to change it. You might not like the offer, but you don't know my reasons for making it, and you have no right to claim what is being offered to someone else.
User avatar #81763 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
What you are saying is not in conflict with what I am saying.
Basically, they're saying that they want to sell, but not to homos.
So two guys walk up to a salesman and want to take up his offer. He refuses, stating he thinks they're gay. Now, the only way for the salesman to legitimately refuse to sell, would be for the two guys to actually be gay. Should this go to court, it would result in the couple stating wether or not they're gay. What I am arguing, is that it is a clear violation of the individual's privacy. Companies being able to refuse to sell to gay couples, would require them to know that they're actually gay. And that is none of the companies' business.
#81764 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
Okay, but then I can reword it to exclude effeminates and gays. It doesn't make much difference if you state the exception in the advertisement or at the cash register.
User avatar #81766 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
What I'm basically trying to say is that this law discriminates, and this sort of discrimination is against international trading standards, international human right charters, and is probably also a violation of gay Americans' constitutional rights. Why anyone would support a law like this is beyond me.
I won't bother commenting on the blatant hypocrisy in that he believes that the free market powers should and will fix it all, but when costumers start to boycot for reasons he does not like, its suddenly wrong.
#81768 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
Thomas Sowell Dismantles Egalitarianism (Frances Fox Piven Edition) I don't think he's against boycotting, he just thinks they're being foolish for boycotting Indiana.

Discrimination is typically bad, but discriminating who you give your money to is not a violation of any trading standards, human rights charters, or the U.S. constitution. Actually, the opposite is true: forcing transactions to occur that otherwise would not is a violation of all three.

Fortunately, businesses that discriminate are already penalized in the market without government having to do anything. They have to pay a cost if they want to discriminate, so long as the market is free. But, anti-discrimination laws can actually reduce and eliminate the market penalties against discriminatory businesses, and even be discriminatory themselves. Watch the video kanadetenshi posted, or this one.
#81758 - You cannot change a contract, and you cannot back out of a dea…  [+] (8 new replies) 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #81759 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
When you have extended an offer, its content cannot be changed if it has laid "bonds" on a buyer. So if a gay person comes up to me and wants to take my offer, I cannot retract it just because he is gay. I'm baffled that these idiots praising "muh free market" don't know basic shit like that.
#81760 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
Yes, you can. Neither party has made any commitment, and no "bonds" have been laid, so there is no loss by either party by changing or tearing up the contract. Anti-discriminatory laws are not fundamental to contracts. I'm baffled that you would think they are.
User avatar #81761 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
International trade standards clearly states, that as soon as an offer makes the buyer interested, it's prohibited to:
a: withdraw the offer
b: change any terms in the offer
The bond has nothing to do with any transactions being made, it's purely the interest from the offer-reciever that matters.

Lets take an example: A hotel extends an offer on renting a room. A gay couple approaches and takes up the offer. The hotel manager denies this, saying that he has indeed put forward an offer, but he does not want to sell to that exact person. As this not civil-trading but business-to-customer, what the hotel manager does is indeed a violation of CISG and pretty much all trading rules in most Western countries.
#81762 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
One FJ star for sale for 100 FJ points to anyone whose alias begins with a letter between A and M. I do not have to withdraw the offer, and I do not have to change it. You might not like the offer, but you don't know my reasons for making it, and you have no right to claim what is being offered to someone else.
User avatar #81763 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
What you are saying is not in conflict with what I am saying.
Basically, they're saying that they want to sell, but not to homos.
So two guys walk up to a salesman and want to take up his offer. He refuses, stating he thinks they're gay. Now, the only way for the salesman to legitimately refuse to sell, would be for the two guys to actually be gay. Should this go to court, it would result in the couple stating wether or not they're gay. What I am arguing, is that it is a clear violation of the individual's privacy. Companies being able to refuse to sell to gay couples, would require them to know that they're actually gay. And that is none of the companies' business.
#81764 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
Okay, but then I can reword it to exclude effeminates and gays. It doesn't make much difference if you state the exception in the advertisement or at the cash register.
User avatar #81766 - radiserne (03/28/2015) [-]
What I'm basically trying to say is that this law discriminates, and this sort of discrimination is against international trading standards, international human right charters, and is probably also a violation of gay Americans' constitutional rights. Why anyone would support a law like this is beyond me.
I won't bother commenting on the blatant hypocrisy in that he believes that the free market powers should and will fix it all, but when costumers start to boycot for reasons he does not like, its suddenly wrong.
#81768 - cabbagemayhem (03/28/2015) [-]
Thomas Sowell Dismantles Egalitarianism (Frances Fox Piven Edition) I don't think he's against boycotting, he just thinks they're being foolish for boycotting Indiana.

Discrimination is typically bad, but discriminating who you give your money to is not a violation of any trading standards, human rights charters, or the U.S. constitution. Actually, the opposite is true: forcing transactions to occur that otherwise would not is a violation of all three.

Fortunately, businesses that discriminate are already penalized in the market without government having to do anything. They have to pay a cost if they want to discriminate, so long as the market is free. But, anti-discrimination laws can actually reduce and eliminate the market penalties against discriminatory businesses, and even be discriminatory themselves. Watch the video kanadetenshi posted, or this one.
#81756 - 51% majority rule is a tyrannical system. Consensus should be … 03/28/2015 on Politics - politics news,... 0

user's channels

Join Subscribe 4chan
Join Subscribe info
Join Subscribe videogames

user's friends

User avatar thirdjess    

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1150

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)