Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

mexicoman

Rank #4460 on Content
mexicoman Avatar Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to mexicoman Block mexicoman Invite mexicoman to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:12/11/2010
Last Login:12/28/2014
Location:Washington
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#4460
Comment Ranking:#14913
Highest Content Rank:#4460
Highest Comment Rank:#8067
Content Thumbs: 1807 total,  2211 ,  404
Comment Thumbs: 1435 total,  2002 ,  567
Content Level Progress: 73% (73/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 87% (87/100)
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:135469
Times Content Favorited:109 times
Total Comments Made:681
FJ Points:3202
Favorite Tags: the (8) | game (5) | You (4) | for (3) | a (2) | are (2) | black (2) | do (2) | in (2) | kill (2) | Lost (2) | omegle (2) | on (2) | tags (2) | this (2) | to (2) | your (2)

latest user's comments

#15536 - Well, no. I would have to explain why selective acceptance of …  [+] (8 new replies) 12/12/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15537 - noblexfenrir (12/12/2012) [-]
I'm still not seeing how that has anything to do with "hatred of the poor" if you are against programs for specific reasons having nothing to do with hating a specific group.

You can be against welfare when it isn't applied properly or maintained correctly. You can also be against the amount being sectioned to a specific program due to the state a country is in when the amount can be seen as an excess.
User avatar #15540 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
"You can be against welfare when it isn't applied properly or maintained correctly."

No, you can't. You can however be for reforming welfare to fix its application process, and for the purpose of maintenance. But when you are against welfare for its application, it is clearly not an ideological disagreement against the concept of welfare.
User avatar #15541 - noblexfenrir (12/12/2012) [-]
Actually, you can.

You can be against welfare, and not want a government supported program to help someone simply because they are out of work, you can have a sink or swim mentality. However, you can also see how integrated it has become in todays society and recognize its flaws and explain how they can be fixed. You can still not like welfare but would still prefer a forceful version instead of the one we have now.
User avatar #15545 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
At first you were talking about not wanting welfare at all, now you are talking about welfare reform. You are clearly back-pedaling. What you want here is the best of both worlds. I said that those who have no problem spending on roads and drones, who suddenly get uppity when that money is going towards making people not starve clearly have a cognitive dissonance that stems from simply not wanting to use their socialism to help poor people. Now you say that you don't want it, but in the meantime you would like to see it gutted to better fit your sink or swim stance.
User avatar #15577 - noblexfenrir (12/13/2012) [-]
also

>Roads and drones.

Because that's ALL their money goes to right? It's roads, drones, and the poor, the only 3 things right?
#15595 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
User avatar #15576 - noblexfenrir (12/13/2012) [-]
You obviously did not read anything I said.

Re-read and then comment. My points in the posts were as follows:

>Not wanting welfare is not being against the poor.
>Someone can not like welfare because of very legitimate economical reasons.
>They can however see that in the state the country is in, it's necessary but you would prefer a reformed version of it that weans people off of it quicker.
>While supporting the reformed version, this may only be a lesser of 2 evils for you, when in reality you don't support welfare at all.

Simple stuff sparky.
User avatar #15594 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
You can be against welfare and not be against the poor, I easily admit that. But when you suddenly hate the 'socialism' in welfare because its so Unfair you come off looking like an out of touch dickhead with simple disdain for the impoverished.
#15535 - Just because two crazy black ************* killed…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/12/2012 on Politics - politics news,... -1
User avatar #15547 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
*not if we don't want
User avatar #15701 - lecherouslad (12/15/2012) [-]
*Nigger
Fixed :P
#15532 - It is mostly conservatives, not the majority of Americans, and…  [+] (46 new replies) 12/12/2012 on Politics - politics news,... -1
User avatar #15534 - noblexfenrir (12/12/2012) [-]
You're going to have to explain how not accepting socialism is "hatred of the poor".
#15542 - anonymous (12/12/2012) [-]
It can't be explained. Accusations of "hatred of the poor" is nothing more than a straw man fallacy.
User avatar #15546 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
Actually it can. If you approve of:

Drones that may be developed for use in warfare (Funded by your tax dollars)
Roads and bridges that get you to work (funded by your tax dollars)
a police department (funded by your tax dollars)

But you suddenly fucking hate socialism when it is used to help a single mother's children not die, yes that can be seen as hatred of the poor without it being a motherfuckin' straw man.
User avatar #15564 - Yardie (12/12/2012) [-]
I don't support government involvement in infrastructure, and I'm a conservative. Drones are for military purposes, and although I believe we spend too much on our military, the government has the right to tax it's citizens to fund protection. Police Department is the same thing. The Fire Department might be pushing it a bit, but I'm willing to shovel tax dollars into it.

A socialist democracy turns into simply voting away the rights of the minority. 51% of the population doesn't like the Rich? 100% CORPORATE INCOME TAX INCOMING! 51% of the population doesn't like black people? SLAVERY OPEN SEASON AGAIN!

The biggest fallacy of Socialism is that it helps the poor, when in reality it is simply giving the poor what they want, not what they need. The long term effects hurt everybody, especially the poor. What defines poor anyways? To the person living off of welfare, the person working their ass off making $50,000 per year is rich. Does that mean that they should have a 50% income tax to pay for their less fortunate brother? Or should that brother be allowed to find a job and become a productive citizen rather than leech off of the hard working while being bogged down by the economic deprivation that is the result of Socialist policy?
User avatar #15570 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
Yup, the poor are leeches. You definitely have no vitriol for the poor.

The point is that it is socialist when government collects taxes to spend on the military. So don't object to welfare on the basis of 'its socialism'. If you don't like welfare because of its economic impact, I will disagree with you. But I can respect that you aren't ignorant and taking part in that severe cognitive dissonance basically because you insist on excluding the poor.
User avatar #15579 - Yardie (12/13/2012) [-]
The poor are leeches? That's you speaking. Typical strawman argument. I object against Socialism on the basis that it slows the market down, lowers the average standard of living, and the fact that it is immoral to steal wealth, even if you vote for it. I'm OK with military spending because without a military we would collapse to outside powers. It's necessary to protect our Life Liberty and Property. Welfare programs are simply theft. There is no moral reasoning for welfare, it's completely political. Did you even read what I said or did you just pick out one phrase in my whole paragraph?
User avatar #15593 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
It was you who said " Or should that brother be allowed to find a job and become a productive citizen rather than leech off of the hard working while being bogged down by the economic deprivation that is the result of Socialist policy?"

And you very clearly do not object to socialism because you are okay with military spending. Just that alone proves that your arguments against welfare are not on the basis of any disdain for socialism. You are instead arbitrarily picking and choosing what can and cannot be spent by government with your approval. Im not saying that you have to be fine with any spending of the government, but don't say you hate socialism when it is used as a tool to help people that you either don't like or do not want assisted. HAVE your reasons and arguments against welfare INDEPENDENT of its application being generally 'socialist'. If you don't you look like a social darwinist who really has it out for the impoverished.
User avatar #15609 - Yardie (12/13/2012) [-]
Military spending is NECESSARY though. Without it we would all be indoctrinated by an outside military force the instant they decided to bat a eye towards us. So you're saying the government should be in charge of all or nothing? That's retarded and not even worth spending the time explaining how poor of an argument that is. You're using fallacies to try and argue. I hope you understand that.

I already gave my arguments against social welfare, you're ignoring them. I said it doesn't help, it hurts. You said "HURR YOU'RE CALLING POOR PEOPLE LEECHES" because either you can't counter my argument, or you just want to be an ass.

And I never said the poor are leeches anyways. I said the poor who live off of welfare doing nothing productive for society are leeches, because that's what they are. Would it be nice to help them out? Yes. Is it our duty? No. They are not morally obligated to forcefully take property from another person. That's why charity organizations exist. And if they want more than minimal to no help, they need to work for it. You don't have the right to somebody else's property (money, food, clothes, etc.) for simply living. And there are plenty of jobs out there that aren't very difficult to get here in America, you just make more off of welfare/social security than actually taking a job.

And if you want to define Socialism as defense and law enforcement, so be it, I'm all for it then. I'm talking about universal Socialism that I object to. Where the government now controls the economy and society, not just defense.

You seem to think if one instance is OK, then all is OK. So by your logic if its OK to kill somebody as a last option in self defense, it's OK to murder a whole bus full of children. It's horrible logic and makes for a horrible argument.
User avatar #15610 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
Im not having that fucking argument with you about the legitimacy of certain government functions and welfare to be specific. My point is and always was that those who argue against welfare on the basis of 'its socialism' are in fact cunts. You have ignored my point. I would not approve of government funded handjobs, but not on the basis of my disdain for it being a function of socialism. You are trying to transform this into a welfare argument.
User avatar #15612 - Yardie (12/13/2012) [-]
And its not that I'm not open minded to social programs like defense and such, because those things are necessary. Things like Welfare, Healthcare, Keynesianism, aren't necessary, and hurt more than they help.
User avatar #15611 - Yardie (12/13/2012) [-]
But that's what this is! I'm trying to argue against the facets OF socialism. Social Welfare is one of those things. I'm trying to explain why I don't like Socialism, because simply saying that I feel that it hampers productivity, lowers the average standard of living, creates class warfare, promotes corporate buy-ins to government, promotes powerful government, and all in all hurts everybody in the end, isn't enough for you apparently.
User avatar #15613 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
No, that is not what this is. You are arguing against welfare, a program that is socialist. I am saying that attacking this program for being socialist makes you a dick, if you also happen to approve of military spending and public roads. If you attack this program for other legitimate reasons pertaining to its economic effect and moral inconsistencies, then that is not the same thing.
User avatar #15614 - Yardie (12/13/2012) [-]
When I think of Socialism, I think of large government involvement. The in-between of Capitalism and Communism. When I think of small government involvement, like defense and law enforcement, I think of Minarchism, not Socialism.

Socialist and Socialism are two different things.
#15615 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
When I think of socialism, I think of the people pooling together resources for the sake of providing for the necessities or more broadly to provide for things that the public wants money spent on. Those 'necessary government function' lines you like to draw are socialist, the type of governance that can be described as is socialism. When you say "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor people." it is not the same as "If welfare means forcibly taxing and spending (socialism) people than I am against it.". One of those statements would mike a 'Minarchist' look like a dickhead, because they are changing the fundamentals of acceptable governance based on the subject matter.

GIF is unrelated
User avatar #15619 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
In Capitalism wealth is spread to those who deserve it. In socialism you get a misallocation of resources and a lazy population that feels entitled to just about everything. When I say "I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on those that aren't contributing a damn thing to the collective" I mean exactly that. And subject matter matters. There's a difference between duty and right, and need and want. If you want something, its your duty to work for it. Otherwise nobody gets that thing you want, because nobody's making it. Unless you force them to make it, but that's slavery.
User avatar #15622 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Okay, but I am not arguing with you about This. I redirect you to my previous post with the lesbians.
User avatar #15623 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
So what are you even arguing then? That you have an opinion? Cool story then I guess.
User avatar #15624 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
"I don't want the funds taken from me to be spent on poor people." it is not the same as "If welfare means forcibly taxing and spending (socialism) people than I am against it.".

Just because you seem to refuse reading and understanding my argument, again I say read my actual comments.
User avatar #15635 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Ah I see what you are saying now. I guess I can agree to that. But there's always those people. Dumbasses unfortunately exist.
User avatar #15633 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
Most of what I said wasn't about welfare. I've read through everything you've said in this thread at least 2-3 times. I don't think you read what I say fully, or you can't understand the implications my words have towards your argument. Your argument is that most conservatives "suddenly fucking hate socialism" while advocating things like military spending, which is hypocritical right?

I'm saying that your argument is a fallacy because Welfare is leagues different than military spending and infrastructure.

You also claim that conservatives simply have a hatred for the poor, which is just plain baseless, untrue, and slanderous.

I might rant a little about welfare, but that's just my thoughts flowing as I type. I tend to over-think things. I was simultaneously trying to argue two points, and I guess my counterpoint was overshadowed.
User avatar #15634 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Well I am saying that it is not different in its application and funding, which is what one is objecting to when 'socialism!' is the critique that is applied to it, and when they do that they ought to know better. But they don't know better, because that kind of mistake in judgement is often the product of a sad and sick disdain for the poor.

It'd be like if somebody was perfectly fine with sleeping under covers made of cotton or silk, but whenever they see something they morally object to like panda fur covers they yell "Fuck Panda-bear covers AND Beds! This country is descending into a state of Beds!".
User avatar #15631 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But they object to that welfare because they object all welfare. Welfare is used for political gain. Charities do the job much better and without the corruption or thievery through taxes. And most conservatives realize that there are necessities that we can't get rid of. What are you talking about when you say they "ought to know better" care to elaborate?

And there you go again with "disdain for the poor." There is absolutely no motive for conservative people to hate the poor, and there is no evidence showing that conservatives hate the poor. It's a leftist twist that you seem to strongly believe in, and something that I can't really understand unless you truly believe that welfare is a natural born right and the fact that conservatives don't like welfare makes them immoral in that regard.

Now if you're saying that SOME conservatives argue in the retarded way you say they do, then the point is moot because there's always that one retard in any group. You said before "mostly conservatives" which I see as an attack on conservative thinking. By your wording you were basically saying "All conservatives just hate the poor and taxes and that's why they don't like socialism" Is that what you were saying originally?
User avatar #15632 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Again with the welfare, I am not talking about that.

I recommend re-reading at least my last three comments just to clear the muddied waters because you are having trouble understanding the words I am typing to you. Keep reading them over again until you get it, because when you do you will understand how to approach this dialogue. I don't necessarily blame you, you probably have had more than your fair share of fights about welfare and that must have tainted the lenses that you read with. I sincerely do not understand the misconceptions you are getting here.
User avatar #15627 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
(in response to your last post)

But you're the one who said

"But you suddenly fucking hate socialism when it is used to help a single mother's children not die, yes that can be seen as hatred of the poor without it being a motherfuckin' straw man. "

It brought up the point of welfare, which I responded to and then you defended, and I gave my rebuttal. Then you changed the subject again and the argument continued.

Now you're saying that it was never about welfare when our whole argument was on the basis of welfare. You've managed to confuse me greatly.
User avatar #15628 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
There isn't anything inconsistent about that. The fact is that when welfare is used for things like feeding children, many conservatives object to it. Their stated reasons are many times actual arguments highlighting the impact it has morally and economically speaking, but more than an acceptable number of conservative or libertarian minded opponents of welfare " suddenly fucking hate socialism" when it doesn't fit their ideology. So instead of construct these arguments that you appear to be more than capable of firing off at will, they attack the governmental system of taxing and spending when they ought to know better. Now I believe that this nonsensical misstepping is more than just stupidity but a disdain for the poor that is so strong that the very nature of the issue renders even its socialist underpinnings immoral.

I did make side comments that indirectly condemned the the mindset of one who hates these programs that are "used to help a single mother's children not die" and your little 'leeches' label that you used to paint what I imagine as being a large set of welfare recipients but that hardly alters the very nature of the argument, and if you insist on side-tracking us here then you will be disappointed because I am not here to debate that.
User avatar #15625 - Yardie (12/14/2012) [-]
But that's not the argument. That's oversimplifying it. There's necessary things and there's things people want, and things politicians give for political reasons.

Throwing money at the poor isn't a solution to a problem is the argument. It's not to spite the poor, it's with the big picture in mind. I would be all for no taxation at all, but that would turn out bad because America isn't the only country and there is need for organization and a military defense force.

Again your argument is based on a fallacy, so I wasn't taking that part serious.
#15626 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Do not delude yourself, that's not the argument here. The discussion sparking contention I had was that people who object to welfare on the grounds of it being socialism are cunts, that is the point that I raised. You then took that as an opportunity to defend the anti-welfare stance, which is not what I was talking about. I was speaking on people who selectively decide when the concept of socialism is acceptable based on their own prejudices toward the poor.
#15608 - Ruspanic (12/13/2012) [-]
Here's a related political cartoon.
#15607 - Ruspanic has deleted their comment.
User avatar #15606 - Ruspanic (12/13/2012) [-]
Let me step in here. To understand this sort of reasoning, think of taxes as a necessary evil.
Taxes are basically the government taking a portion of your money and using it in ways you have no control over. If you refuse to pay taxes, you can be fined or incarcerated. Some hardcore libertarians or anarchists compare taxation to extortion by the Mafia - you are coerced into paying the government money for services you did not explicitly request. Therefore taxes violate property rights and restrict economic freedom.

Minarchists and libertarians, however, are willing to make an exception by arguing that if it were not for some absolutely essential tax-funded government services, social order could not exist and individual rights would not be protected. Typically these exceptions include defense from external threats (military spending), law enforcement/criminal justice to protect people's lives and rights, infrastructure, and civil justice (mediating disputes).

These are typically considered essential functions - though there's some disagreement even here (Yardie excludes infrastructure) - and they benefit everyone in society, including the poor.

Because taxes are evil, however, they should be avoided whenever possible. From this standpoint, welfare spending is unethical because it takes money from the many and redistributes it to benefit the few, without the explicit consent of the taxpayers who provide that money.

Please correct me, Yardie, if I have misrepresented your ideology.
User avatar #15548 - Ruspanic (12/12/2012) [-]
The three things you listed are basic functions of any government - defense, infrastructure, and law enforcement. These are things that even many libertarians will agree are justified uses of tax dollars.
Conservatives and libertarians want to minimize government power as well as taxes, mainly because they feel that a) such things are detrimental to individual freedom and b) the government does many things less efficiently and more expensively than the private sector.

Many conservatives believe strongly in the ability of the free market to drive progress and improve quality of life, and are highly suspicious of a government monopoly on any industry.

As someone with a similar ideology (though I'm not an idealist), I can assure you that I do not hate the poor.
User avatar #15552 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
If you believe sincerely that welfare is a bad program because it is detrimental to the economy and actually makes things worse in the end, that is fine. I will disagree with you, but it would be with respect.

Rejecting welfare on the grounds of 'its socialism' while being fine with socialism when it builds you roads, protects you from other countries, or just fires, is clearly awful. One who does so is fine with money being spent on bullshit that will hurt people in the end, but do Not want their money to help those who are truly in need of a leg up and clearly have anti-altruistic tendencies and it is a sign of picking and choosing what government may do for the sake of excluding the poor and needy.

Bottom line, if you against helping poor people with tax dollars, don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining by objecting to it on the grounds of socialism.
#15560 - anonymous (12/12/2012) [-]
"while being fine with socialism when it builds you roads, protects you from other countries, or just fires,"

Sorry, but government services are not "socialism." And contrary to what a lot of people believe, welfare isn't necessarily socialism either. It doesn't automatically make a country socialist, nor does a socialist country necessarily have to involve welfare. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and directs the economy.
User avatar #15573 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
Well, very clearly they own the means of national defense, firefighting staff, as well as road building/maintaining.

Apart from all of the military's private contractors (mercenaries).
#15617 - anonymous (12/14/2012) [-]
National defense, firefighting staff, and road construction are not means of production. They are public services.

Factories and natural resources are means of production.
User avatar #15618 - mexicoman (12/14/2012) [-]
Are you saying that they clearly are not functions of the government that direct the economy in any significant way.
User avatar #15543 - noblexfenrir (12/12/2012) [-]
Oh I absolutely agree.

I never understood why many people have this idea of conservatives, business owners, rich people in general, hating the poor and trying to actively work against them considering the workforce is their greatest asset. They need them and the fact is for most businesses, the better the lower income families are doing, the better it is for them.
User avatar #15536 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
Well, no. I would have to explain why selective acceptance of socialism only in certain circumstances that do not involve welfare and healthcare coverage amounts to hatred of the poor.
User avatar #15537 - noblexfenrir (12/12/2012) [-]
I'm still not seeing how that has anything to do with "hatred of the poor" if you are against programs for specific reasons having nothing to do with hating a specific group.

You can be against welfare when it isn't applied properly or maintained correctly. You can also be against the amount being sectioned to a specific program due to the state a country is in when the amount can be seen as an excess.
User avatar #15540 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
"You can be against welfare when it isn't applied properly or maintained correctly."

No, you can't. You can however be for reforming welfare to fix its application process, and for the purpose of maintenance. But when you are against welfare for its application, it is clearly not an ideological disagreement against the concept of welfare.
User avatar #15541 - noblexfenrir (12/12/2012) [-]
Actually, you can.

You can be against welfare, and not want a government supported program to help someone simply because they are out of work, you can have a sink or swim mentality. However, you can also see how integrated it has become in todays society and recognize its flaws and explain how they can be fixed. You can still not like welfare but would still prefer a forceful version instead of the one we have now.
User avatar #15545 - mexicoman (12/12/2012) [-]
At first you were talking about not wanting welfare at all, now you are talking about welfare reform. You are clearly back-pedaling. What you want here is the best of both worlds. I said that those who have no problem spending on roads and drones, who suddenly get uppity when that money is going towards making people not starve clearly have a cognitive dissonance that stems from simply not wanting to use their socialism to help poor people. Now you say that you don't want it, but in the meantime you would like to see it gutted to better fit your sink or swim stance.
User avatar #15577 - noblexfenrir (12/13/2012) [-]
also

>Roads and drones.

Because that's ALL their money goes to right? It's roads, drones, and the poor, the only 3 things right?
#15595 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
User avatar #15576 - noblexfenrir (12/13/2012) [-]
You obviously did not read anything I said.

Re-read and then comment. My points in the posts were as follows:

>Not wanting welfare is not being against the poor.
>Someone can not like welfare because of very legitimate economical reasons.
>They can however see that in the state the country is in, it's necessary but you would prefer a reformed version of it that weans people off of it quicker.
>While supporting the reformed version, this may only be a lesser of 2 evils for you, when in reality you don't support welfare at all.

Simple stuff sparky.
User avatar #15594 - mexicoman (12/13/2012) [-]
You can be against welfare and not be against the poor, I easily admit that. But when you suddenly hate the 'socialism' in welfare because its so Unfair you come off looking like an out of touch dickhead with simple disdain for the impoverished.
#39 - Should have gone with the diet drink 12/11/2012 on here comes the boom 0
#262 - I'd be overdosing on pills too ... if I dro… 12/11/2012 on yesterday +2
#25 - My literal face when.  [+] (2 new replies) 12/11/2012 on F4T K1D I5 FUNNY +14
User avatar #28 - thehandofgod (12/11/2012) [-]
So I assume you are Ricky Gervais then....
#76 - coolcalx (12/11/2012) [-]
#15444 - One generalization I make is: Right wing politicians tend … 12/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15443 - The problem is that I don't trust any source that says 'Islami… 12/08/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
#15432 - I don't think so at all. Its not about just having the right t… 12/07/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15318 - This isn't about changing minds, its about getting those on th… 12/05/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15316 - The problem is that shame moves people faster than logical dis…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/05/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15317 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
but the other problem is that when you treat others like inferiors, they treat you like inferiors. And you just walk away thinking each other is an idiot, and you accomplished nothing. And people watching end up just agreeing with their original opinions even more.
User avatar #15318 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
This isn't about changing minds, its about getting those on the fence to get the fuck over to the right side. The people who disagree strongly enough wouldn't even admit to changing his mind IF you did change it.
#15314 - Im not afraid to pepper my arguments with personal attacks aga…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/05/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15315 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
obviously, and it's effective at persuading outside viewers of an argument, but by that same token it should not be done, you're filling your argument with negative perspectives of other ideals rather than a logical argument. People remember the implications of your argument rather than your actual argument, so you're influencing people more with your attacks than your reasoning, and I believe arguments should be won with real logic and reason.
User avatar #15316 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
The problem is that shame moves people faster than logical discourse, so at the very least it ought to be applied intelligently. I believe that people who don't agree with gay marriage and ending the wars are fucking degenerates, for instance. If I treat those people as though they are my equals, I do a disservice to my own ideology of egalitarianism and peace.
User avatar #15317 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
but the other problem is that when you treat others like inferiors, they treat you like inferiors. And you just walk away thinking each other is an idiot, and you accomplished nothing. And people watching end up just agreeing with their original opinions even more.
User avatar #15318 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
This isn't about changing minds, its about getting those on the fence to get the fuck over to the right side. The people who disagree strongly enough wouldn't even admit to changing his mind IF you did change it.
#15306 - No, no, no. I was just calling some 'liberals' (Air quotes ind…  [+] (6 new replies) 12/05/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15312 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
what I'm saying is there is no need for name calling, you can just argue for/against a position rather than the people. It doesn't actually add to your argument, it just makes you look like a douche.
User avatar #15314 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Im not afraid to pepper my arguments with personal attacks against my ideological enemies.
User avatar #15315 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
obviously, and it's effective at persuading outside viewers of an argument, but by that same token it should not be done, you're filling your argument with negative perspectives of other ideals rather than a logical argument. People remember the implications of your argument rather than your actual argument, so you're influencing people more with your attacks than your reasoning, and I believe arguments should be won with real logic and reason.
User avatar #15316 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
The problem is that shame moves people faster than logical discourse, so at the very least it ought to be applied intelligently. I believe that people who don't agree with gay marriage and ending the wars are fucking degenerates, for instance. If I treat those people as though they are my equals, I do a disservice to my own ideology of egalitarianism and peace.
User avatar #15317 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
but the other problem is that when you treat others like inferiors, they treat you like inferiors. And you just walk away thinking each other is an idiot, and you accomplished nothing. And people watching end up just agreeing with their original opinions even more.
User avatar #15318 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
This isn't about changing minds, its about getting those on the fence to get the fuck over to the right side. The people who disagree strongly enough wouldn't even admit to changing his mind IF you did change it.
#15305 - Its a matter of priorities. If I were mayor of some town and I…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/05/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #15405 - robopuppy (12/07/2012) [-]
I see your argument but it is a bit of a straw man. Weed is great, I love it, but when push comes to shove I can stop using it if needed. I can't stop liking the same sex. Weed is a privileged while equality is a right. Not just that but the fact that "local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first" also leads to public opinion against the people that are discriminated and leads to tons of hate crimes, including murders. I agree that drug legalization is a huge issue but in context I think gay rights are higher.
#15432 - mexicoman (12/07/2012) [-]
I don't think so at all. Its not about just having the right to smoke weed, it is the fact that people are dying as a result of the drug 'war', its all the people crammed into prison for inhumane periods of time only to be thrust into an unwelcoming job climate that will only force them into the black market again, and the gradual chipping away it makes at the poor. That is so much more important than gay marriage. It is true that the hate crimes are a result of the fight for marital equality, but black people alone are more victim to hate crimes than gay people. They are seen as corruption of youth causing gangsters (though the culture of gangster rap does not help them) and I don't think it unreasonable to assume that hate crimes against racial minorities dwarfs their effects on the homosexual community.

GIF very loosely related.
User avatar #15327 - noblexfenrir (12/05/2012) [-]
You didn't really answer the question...how is someone being treated differently for no objective reason less important than legalization of marijuana...?
User avatar #15331 - Ruspanic (12/05/2012) [-]
The best argument I've seen against gay civil marriage/unions - and perhaps the only one that has any intellectual appeal, though it may still be rather weak - is that government recognition of marriage is a matter of public policy that should serve the public good. The reason marriage has any sort of special legal status in the first place is that the government wants to a) encourage reproduction and b) help ensure that children are raised in a stable environment. Since gay couples cannot naturally reproduce, giving their relationships special legal status (and therefore tax credits and other benefits) would serve no purpose. gay couples are already free to have long-term relationships and live together.

Although this argument doesn't convince me to oppose gay civil marriage, it is an "objective reason" to treat gay couples differently under the law.
#15302 - Im more upset about the fact that Marijuana (or just drugs in …  [+] (6 new replies) 12/05/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #15304 - robopuppy (12/05/2012) [-]
I don't mean to be rude but how is making some people second class citizens less important than weed? Don't get me wrong, I love weed. But if I were to choose between losing weed or being less than everyone else I would lose weed.
User avatar #15305 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Its a matter of priorities. If I were mayor of some town and I found there were landmines around that killed people, imprisoned people, and made them needlessly unemployable, I would hesitate to then deal with the fact that the local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first.

That is a very shitty but accurate analogy of these two issues in context. I am a full blown egalitarian but I think it is wrong to place this issue so high on the to-do list.
User avatar #15405 - robopuppy (12/07/2012) [-]
I see your argument but it is a bit of a straw man. Weed is great, I love it, but when push comes to shove I can stop using it if needed. I can't stop liking the same sex. Weed is a privileged while equality is a right. Not just that but the fact that "local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first" also leads to public opinion against the people that are discriminated and leads to tons of hate crimes, including murders. I agree that drug legalization is a huge issue but in context I think gay rights are higher.
#15432 - mexicoman (12/07/2012) [-]
I don't think so at all. Its not about just having the right to smoke weed, it is the fact that people are dying as a result of the drug 'war', its all the people crammed into prison for inhumane periods of time only to be thrust into an unwelcoming job climate that will only force them into the black market again, and the gradual chipping away it makes at the poor. That is so much more important than gay marriage. It is true that the hate crimes are a result of the fight for marital equality, but black people alone are more victim to hate crimes than gay people. They are seen as corruption of youth causing gangsters (though the culture of gangster rap does not help them) and I don't think it unreasonable to assume that hate crimes against racial minorities dwarfs their effects on the homosexual community.

GIF very loosely related.
User avatar #15327 - noblexfenrir (12/05/2012) [-]
You didn't really answer the question...how is someone being treated differently for no objective reason less important than legalization of marijuana...?
User avatar #15331 - Ruspanic (12/05/2012) [-]
The best argument I've seen against gay civil marriage/unions - and perhaps the only one that has any intellectual appeal, though it may still be rather weak - is that government recognition of marriage is a matter of public policy that should serve the public good. The reason marriage has any sort of special legal status in the first place is that the government wants to a) encourage reproduction and b) help ensure that children are raised in a stable environment. Since gay couples cannot naturally reproduce, giving their relationships special legal status (and therefore tax credits and other benefits) would serve no purpose. gay couples are already free to have long-term relationships and live together.

Although this argument doesn't convince me to oppose gay civil marriage, it is an "objective reason" to treat gay couples differently under the law.
#15300 - Of course you need gun control. Keeping lists, waiting periods…  [+] (8 new replies) 12/05/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#15303 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
Don't attach a position to an entire group of people, call them faggots, and then just make up shit about the extent of their positions as a collective whole.
User avatar #15306 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
No, no, no. I was just calling some 'liberals' (Air quotes indicating that I do not believe true liberals actually hold this position) faggoty (different from full blown faggot). And I do not consider the obvious truth as 'making shit up'. This subsection of pussy-bitch authoritarians who want to control guns the most also want to ban assault weapons, and very logically can be inferred to having a 'ban all guns' mentality.
User avatar #15312 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
what I'm saying is there is no need for name calling, you can just argue for/against a position rather than the people. It doesn't actually add to your argument, it just makes you look like a douche.
User avatar #15314 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Im not afraid to pepper my arguments with personal attacks against my ideological enemies.
User avatar #15315 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
obviously, and it's effective at persuading outside viewers of an argument, but by that same token it should not be done, you're filling your argument with negative perspectives of other ideals rather than a logical argument. People remember the implications of your argument rather than your actual argument, so you're influencing people more with your attacks than your reasoning, and I believe arguments should be won with real logic and reason.
User avatar #15316 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
The problem is that shame moves people faster than logical discourse, so at the very least it ought to be applied intelligently. I believe that people who don't agree with gay marriage and ending the wars are fucking degenerates, for instance. If I treat those people as though they are my equals, I do a disservice to my own ideology of egalitarianism and peace.
User avatar #15317 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
but the other problem is that when you treat others like inferiors, they treat you like inferiors. And you just walk away thinking each other is an idiot, and you accomplished nothing. And people watching end up just agreeing with their original opinions even more.
User avatar #15318 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
This isn't about changing minds, its about getting those on the fence to get the fuck over to the right side. The people who disagree strongly enough wouldn't even admit to changing his mind IF you did change it.
#21 - Oh god, the sudden feels! 12/05/2012 on In West Feeladelphia +5
#15203 - Here is a comprehensive list of some of the main reasons I wan… 12/02/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +2
#339 - No, ***** ! Its 'The' Mars Rover …  [+] (5 new replies) 12/02/2012 on Good job internet +15
#347 - qwertycat (12/02/2012) [-]
Always a spot in my green thumb reserves for A Pimp Named Slickback.
#343 - jasonthelurker (12/02/2012) [-]
Thanks for the heads up Slickback!
User avatar #341 - dragonock (12/02/2012) [-]
wait i have to say the whole thing, can't i just say rover?
#357 - ultimoz (12/02/2012) [-]
#340 - ishotthedeputy (12/02/2012) [-]
No.
#3 - Comment deleted 11/29/2012 on Micford Jackley +1
#38 - The smallest penis in the world would still break it before ge…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/28/2012 on uhm +1
#39 - Sunset has deleted their comment.
#34 - If you stuck your dick in there I think it would break the cov…  [+] (4 new replies) 11/28/2012 on uhm +2
#36 - Sunset has deleted their comment.
User avatar #38 - mexicoman (11/28/2012) [-]
The smallest penis in the world would still break it before getting it caught.
#39 - Sunset has deleted their comment.
#35 - therealslim (11/28/2012) [-]
Maybe he just has a small penis?
#66 - I don't think its a matter of misogyny, I at least hope not. T… 11/26/2012 on >tfw no gf 0
#118 - You are pre-supposing that communism does not work because the…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/22/2012 on Communism -1
User avatar #125 - glasgowrangers (11/22/2012) [-]
You can say that if you want. It's opinion, i can't point to you and say "look here is an example of a communist state and it has failed" because we've never seen a communist state

And you can't say vice versa, because we've never had a truly free market society

You can say capitalism is shite lol, but you'd need to say why for it to be an effective argument. You would need to say what would be wrong with a free market

I say communism wouldn't work because it stifles evolution in society, no one wants to work when they don't get anything out of it.

Obviously, there are problems in getting to a capitalism state, but i think if we did then it would work, so we should try and get as close to it as possible. Getting as close to communism as possible would be rather dangerous
#221 - Bloodgartham (11/23/2012) [-]
Not suprised that all this is coming from a "Glasgow Rangers" fan.
#115 - People who are older have different motives, as well as differ…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/22/2012 on Communism +1
User avatar #122 - byposted (11/22/2012) [-]
TL;DR: You want Obama to give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants and behold them the rights to vote.

Your example of elderly people expresses your motive well for elderly people are probably the only group which actually follows politics, and are the most intelligent in it. Every single group votes based on blocks like you have described for elderly people; Hispanics vote mostly on illegal immigration, Asians on legal immigration, Blacks on race.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2500

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - sirbonzaiatak (03/25/2011) [-]
LMAO at your post!!! Check out mine and thumb please :)

http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1869232/Weekly+Funny+1/
User avatar #1 - iMJesus (03/11/2011) [-]
Lmfao at your post bro, thumbed up, can you thumb this up for me?
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1796542/Epic+Breakup/
 Friends (0)