Well, let's study the case then. That should be great, right?

Right?

Otherwise it might be a little weird for somebody to talk about mediocrity and not know or understand what a case study even is.

Mediocre!

lol, should I have mentioned my hourly rate? I used the most meaningful and accurate and easiest to understand descriptor.

regardless, you are shifting the goalposts. dude said I was a failure. I attempted to refute this. you elevated the definition of success to making the most amount of money and then made even further assumptions about such coutnerfactuals.

toothsayer posted a ton of words about envy in this very thread. is this why you feel the need to denigrate me?

You're the opposite of wil so I know you didn't actually put me on ignore.

That said, lawwwwwl.

Mao had individual opinions that he dictated. What's the point of being a dictator if you're not going to do that?

Friedman had individual opinions about a form of UBI that were incorporated into his ideas that won him a Nobel Prize in economics. It's not like we're talking about his favorite color.

And aside from all that, your multiple replies constitute a thread derail! (I don't give a **** about a derail because I'm not a neurotic simpleton, but hey) Obviously my comments were directed towards the people who HAD name dropped Friedman and Hayek and who HAD ALSO dismissed any form of UBI. You know, the reality of this thread, not the delusions of neurotic simpletons.

If that didn't apply to you, why would be replying?!?!? That would go against the hallowed BFI gentleman's rules.

p.s. lawwwwwl

Yeah, if Clayton meant TS and wil then I have to walk it all back.

Jealously is a female trait. I'm not jealous or envious of anyone.

This is a sexist view.

Hot damn now that's some productive discussion.

Could you elaborate on a few things for us:

1- what did you have in mind that is similar to UBI?

2- if ubi were implemented today how much should it be?

3- if ubi was implemented today what would you recommend regarding TANF and the EITC?

4- capitalism means a lot of different things to a lot of people. Could you elaborate on what capitalism means ito you in your world view?

Thanks.

Glad it works for you.

While meant to be humorous, it is mostly true. Men should not be jealous of other men, they should strive to try to accomplish the things they wish they had in their lives. Once they reach those goals, nothing should ever make them envious.

Envy is something that tends to afflict people who don't maximize control over their environment and their own lives. That leans much more towards women than men, due to our nature being so fundamentally different. The biggest threat to men are their own mistakes and failures. The biggest threat to women are other women.

One observation to me that's crystal clear as a lurker (in recent years) is that the liberals when posting ITT seem far more aggressive, vile, and hateful when posting outside of their safe space. A bit disappointing too since I was hoping for more substantive debate on more interesting issues. Instead though they just come in like a mob with ad-hominem and wild cries of racism because graphs were posted (KKK hoods? WTF?). I'm so out of the loop that I didn't even realize the politics forum was an echo chamber due to them just banning non-subscribers. I used to read the threads in there and thought I was in the twilight zone. Makes a lot more sense now.

It's a recent phenomenon. It started about five years ago in the universities and spread out into the general public slowly after, really hitting higher levels of crazy in the last three years or so. That's why you're seeing mainstream liberal media slowly morphing into straight up hatred.

It's coming from the universities. It's dangerous and it's a serious problem. We do not have a solution yet.

I, as a liberal and "leftist", have also found aggression among those with the same epithet. Not good. It can make your ideals go out of the window.

Yep, there's no such thing as male jealousy.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j...-interview-477

This is pretty obvious from anyone reading along. Each time an actual argument is posted with reference to statistics, studies, history, etc, it's hand-waved away with an empty ad-hominem. It's like they've entered a BFI thread roped and chained together, with blindfolds on, earplugs in, chanting in unison only to yell a bunch of nonsense before running back to politics.

Ah OK. I used to read politics forum when Borodog, Zygote, and other Austrian types were running the streets there. Stopped reading for a couple years and then come back to a wasteland of what you describe above similar to Will Smith in "I Am Legend". Just like wtf is this.

This article does nothing to disprove my statement. The article even states :

We found that in the vast majority of cases, men kill their partners because of sexual jealousy.

That is a failure in the men who committed those crimes. I stated:

The biggest threat to men are their own mistakes and failures.

which holds true in this case. Only men who lack confidence exhibit sexual jealousy, which is a failure of those particular men. Confident men don't care where their significant other goes or who they talk to, they know their position is secure. Only men who are insecure of their own position react in a controlling manner.

When's your book coming out?

Come on, Howard. You are older and wiser than me. I actually look up to you. If you disagree with me then let's debate the point. No need to be snarky.

Besides, if I wrote a book it would be a failure because 2+2ers would go on Amazon and give it bad reviews.

Ever since this thread's gone off of the rails I've been wondering who to troll and you happened to trigger the response. I don't have anything against you personally and believe that I understand you and consider your positions as legitimate for discussion. IOW, they're fairly standard. But, eventually, enough is enough. When someone gets to re-wording their argument repeatedly they read as if it's a topic that can't be dropped and it just gets boring.

It seems I trigger a lot of people. So be it.

I wish you well.

Seriously, you jut happened by. If there'd been someone else when I opened the thread it might have been them.

Except Tooth. He fascinates me.

Tooth and Juan are among the best posters on 2+2. I don't say that lightly.

1. Pick a post, any post.

2. Reply to it.

3. ???

Also a lurker can have standards.

Wait,

Ok, since Clayton and I are on the same page that this turned out to be a fascinating case study, could you address this:

Read those bolded sentences again, from back to front. Would it change your opinion if you found out they were actual literal white supremacists?