Topic: US Treasury declares insolvency, media silent.
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 hours ago #133,809
https://fortune.com/2026/03/23/us-government-insolvent-fiscal-crisis-fix/
Are there any economists in the house? Fingers crossed for hyperinflation, I have $200,000 in debt that needs to be inflated away.
Are there any economists in the house? Fingers crossed for hyperinflation, I have $200,000 in debt that needs to be inflated away.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 hours ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,425,607
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/business/private-credit-jamie-dimon-cockroaches.html
Head of JP Morgan Chase says when you see one cockroach there are many more you don't see. Warns of private credit market illiquidity after private creditors limit redemptions.
I defaulted on a credit card a year ago and still haven't had any action taken by creditors. Is this a safe move? Do they have the resources to go after me if everyone is failing at once? I really don't see any urgency in paying it. Last time I stopped 3 years ago they just kept offering me discounts until I paid 30% of the bill for a full settlement of the bill.
Money isn't even real.
Head of JP Morgan Chase says when you see one cockroach there are many more you don't see. Warns of private credit market illiquidity after private creditors limit redemptions.
I defaulted on a credit card a year ago and still haven't had any action taken by creditors. Is this a safe move? Do they have the resources to go after me if everyone is failing at once? I really don't see any urgency in paying it. Last time I stopped 3 years ago they just kept offering me discounts until I paid 30% of the bill for a full settlement of the bill.
Money isn't even real.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,635
@previous (A)
What’s crazy is Japan gets 70% of their oil from the strait of Hormuz and due to their aging population and resistance to immigration they have a debt to GDP ratio approaching 300% but people don’t seem to think that the obvious thing is obviously going to happen.
You know why all those European empires in Africa don’t exist anymore? Debt. This time it will be different!
What’s crazy is Japan gets 70% of their oil from the strait of Hormuz and due to their aging population and resistance to immigration they have a debt to GDP ratio approaching 300% but people don’t seem to think that the obvious thing is obviously going to happen.
You know why all those European empires in Africa don’t exist anymore? Debt. This time it will be different!
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,636
Although the US does not appear to be insolvent…
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,638
@1,425,635 (B)
If your people all die off and a different people come in and replace you, you lost.
The Japanese understand that, but victims of western public education do not.
If your people all die off and a different people come in and replace you, you lost.
The Japanese understand that, but victims of western public education do not.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,639
@previous (A)
How come the United States is the most powerful country in the world if the majority of our population consists if the descendants of immigrants?
How come the United States is the most powerful country in the world if the majority of our population consists if the descendants of immigrants?
Anonymous C double-posted this 3 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,640
Japan isn’t ethnically diverse, the US is one of the most ethnically diverse countries. How come we defeated Japan? China is ethnically homogenous, they’re 90% Han Chinese. How come America has a bigger economy even though our population is 4x smaller?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,641
@1,425,636 (B)
Have you been recently?
Nothing is being built, the infrastructure is crumbling. The few modest projects that do exist are behind schedule and over budget, and are nothing compared to works 100 years ago. Very odd considering technology has improved and there are more people too.
Full time workers can't pay the rent, mental health is worse, and there is a full blown political crisis.
These are all the consequences of a financial collapse. The reason the US doesn't act insolvent the way a corporation does is that the US can print money and make it look on paper like they aren't. However, that's not magic, printing money causes inflation, and borrowing is getting worse: 20% of federal revenue is servicing the debt.
Those two planes that crashed at LaGuardia are a good example of how it's already over. They had ONE air traffic controller working when that happened. Inside the airports they are replacing the TSA that are quitting (because they have been working for free for 6 weeks) with ICE agents.
Gasoline prices don't reflect the supply shock either. The already low strategic reserves are being depleted quickly and there is market manipulation that is hiding the true price of crude. Once both of those stop, and neither can last much longer, the private sector is going to be deleveraged as the price of everything goes up, which means everything else in the US will follow the problems in the public federal system.
Have you been recently?
Nothing is being built, the infrastructure is crumbling. The few modest projects that do exist are behind schedule and over budget, and are nothing compared to works 100 years ago. Very odd considering technology has improved and there are more people too.
Full time workers can't pay the rent, mental health is worse, and there is a full blown political crisis.
These are all the consequences of a financial collapse. The reason the US doesn't act insolvent the way a corporation does is that the US can print money and make it look on paper like they aren't. However, that's not magic, printing money causes inflation, and borrowing is getting worse: 20% of federal revenue is servicing the debt.
Those two planes that crashed at LaGuardia are a good example of how it's already over. They had ONE air traffic controller working when that happened. Inside the airports they are replacing the TSA that are quitting (because they have been working for free for 6 weeks) with ICE agents.
Gasoline prices don't reflect the supply shock either. The already low strategic reserves are being depleted quickly and there is market manipulation that is hiding the true price of crude. Once both of those stop, and neither can last much longer, the private sector is going to be deleveraged as the price of everything goes up, which means everything else in the US will follow the problems in the public federal system.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,642
@1,425,639 (C)
> How come the United States is the most powerful country in the world if the majority of our population consists if the descendants of immigrants?
You are completely incapable of comprehending the words you read, as usual.
I didn't say a legal entity would cease to exist, or lose power, when a population was replaced.
I said the people who die off and are replaced have lost.
Pointing out the continuity of an organization misses the very straightforward point I made.
> How come the United States is the most powerful country in the world if the majority of our population consists if the descendants of immigrants?
You are completely incapable of comprehending the words you read, as usual.
I didn't say a legal entity would cease to exist, or lose power, when a population was replaced.
I said the people who die off and are replaced have lost.
Pointing out the continuity of an organization misses the very straightforward point I made.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 56 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,644
My problem with anti immigration rhetoric is that it’s inherently reactionary and reactionary politics are based on emotions not facts. If you actually look at the fact of the matter, Japan is doing terribly, they have no future. They used to be the second largest economy after the US, then they fell behind China, then they fell behind Germany, then they fell behind India, and they’re going to keep falling. Germany only has 80 million people, Japan has 120 million people. Germany and Japan both have birth rates below replacement. The difference is Germany had immigration so they have more working aged people relative to the total size of their population meaning they have a lower dependency ratio than Japan, which offset the population advantage Japan has over Germany, and now Germany is the bigger economy. It’s terrible terrible economic policy to be against immigration if your native population won’t have children. It only accelerates decline.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,646
@1,425,642 (A)
> I said the people who die off and are replaced have lost.
Japanese people are dying off. Japan’s population shrinks every year. If Japan had more immigration, that wouldn’t make ethnically Japanese people die off faster than they already are. It would make them more economically prosperous.
> I said the people who die off and are replaced have lost.
Japanese people are dying off. Japan’s population shrinks every year. If Japan had more immigration, that wouldn’t make ethnically Japanese people die off faster than they already are. It would make them more economically prosperous.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,650
And honestly, part of the reason why Japan doesn’t have higher levels of immigration is because even if Japan decided that they wanted more immigrants, Japan is at a point now where they wouldn’t be attractive to immigrants. Just look at their debt to GDP ratio.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 55 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,652
@1,425,644 (C)
Is it emotional to care about the survival of your tribe?
@1,425,646 (C)
No, they wouldn't be economically prosperous, they'd be dead and replaced.
The Japanese did not create a government to have some abstract entity to serve, they created a government so that the real flesh and blood Japanese could have better lives.
Is it emotional to care about the survival of your tribe?
@1,425,646 (C)
No, they wouldn't be economically prosperous, they'd be dead and replaced.
The Japanese did not create a government to have some abstract entity to serve, they created a government so that the real flesh and blood Japanese could have better lives.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 32 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,653
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 34 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,655
@1,425,652 (A)
> The Japanese did not create a government to have some abstract entity to serve, they created a government so that the real flesh and blood Japanese could have better lives.
Let me stop you right there. The Japanese didn’t create their own government.
> The Japanese did not create a government to have some abstract entity to serve, they created a government so that the real flesh and blood Japanese could have better lives.
Let me stop you right there. The Japanese didn’t create their own government.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,659
The Japanese constitution was written by Americans. The Japanese system shouldn’t be looked to as an example for how we should run western countries because we intentionally designed a system that would keep them weaker than us. That would be incredibly stupid.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 34 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,660
@1,425,653 (C)
Hume pointed out that all reason is a slave to the passions.
Whatever reason you have to care about the government that continues on is also emotional. You can't escape it.
Telling people to ignore their instinct for survival is insane of course. It's like going to a dying person and reassuring them that someone will apply for their job and take over. They aren't worried about that.
@1,425,655 (C)
Nitpicking. The Japanese created a government before the west intervened, and they continue to elect and staff the government because they need an organizational structure for their nation.
The Japanese restrict immigration because they care about their nation, not about the government or land. Those latter two serve the first.
Hume pointed out that all reason is a slave to the passions.
Whatever reason you have to care about the government that continues on is also emotional. You can't escape it.
Telling people to ignore their instinct for survival is insane of course. It's like going to a dying person and reassuring them that someone will apply for their job and take over. They aren't worried about that.
@1,425,655 (C)
Nitpicking. The Japanese created a government before the west intervened, and they continue to elect and staff the government because they need an organizational structure for their nation.
The Japanese restrict immigration because they care about their nation, not about the government or land. Those latter two serve the first.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 59 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,661
@previous (A)
> Hume pointed out that all reason is a slave to the passions.
Oh so now that it’s your feelings you’re making an exception for yourself but you get to pretend you’re more rational than everybody else? Hypocrite.
> Hume pointed out that all reason is a slave to the passions.
Oh so now that it’s your feelings you’re making an exception for yourself but you get to pretend you’re more rational than everybody else? Hypocrite.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 24 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,662
@1,425,659 (C)
All irrelevant to what we are talking about really.
If a Japanese citizen created a business to support his family, and they all died, and he could as a ghost see the business was bought and continued on after would he think "everything worked out in the end!" ?
All irrelevant to what we are talking about really.
If a Japanese citizen created a business to support his family, and they all died, and he could as a ghost see the business was bought and continued on after would he think "everything worked out in the end!" ?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 23 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,663
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 11 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,664
@1,425,660 (A)
> Nitpicking. The Japanese created a government before the west intervened, and they continue to elect and staff the government because they need an organizational structure for their nation.
That government:
1. Lost an existential war
2. Doesn’t exist anymore because it lost an existential war
> Nitpicking. The Japanese created a government before the west intervened, and they continue to elect and staff the government because they need an organizational structure for their nation.
That government:
1. Lost an existential war
2. Doesn’t exist anymore because it lost an existential war
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 28 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,665
@1,425,663 (A)
> An exception to what?
Aren’t you the one who said that women shouldn’t lead because they’re too emotional? But now you’re using emotion in an argument instead of logic.
> An exception to what?
Aren’t you the one who said that women shouldn’t lead because they’re too emotional? But now you’re using emotion in an argument instead of logic.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,666
Hypocrite!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 19 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,667
@1,425,665 (C)
> Aren’t you the one who said that women shouldn’t lead because they’re too emotional?
Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason.
> But now you’re using emotion in an argument instead of logic.
I'm saying all end goals are emotional, and if you want to achieve those goals you use reason.
> Aren’t you the one who said that women shouldn’t lead because they’re too emotional?
Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason.
> But now you’re using emotion in an argument instead of logic.
I'm saying all end goals are emotional, and if you want to achieve those goals you use reason.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,668
@previous (A)
> Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason.
That was a lot of words to say nothing at all.
> Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason.
That was a lot of words to say nothing at all.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,669
@previous (C)
Only if you have no reading comprehension. You could copy and paste that into an AI and ask it if it's coherent, and ask it what it means. That's an objective test to determine if it's my writing or your comprehension skills that are the issue.
Only if you have no reading comprehension. You could copy and paste that into an AI and ask it if it's coherent, and ask it what it means. That's an objective test to determine if it's my writing or your comprehension skills that are the issue.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 49 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,670
@1,425,667 (A)
> I'm saying all end goals are emotional, and if you want to achieve those goals you use reason.
That’s irrelevant because no country has figured out a way to raise birth rates through government action. Japan’s population will die out regardless of whether or not they have immigration. The method for achieving something can’t be conflated with the goal. If reducing immigration to save the Japanese people is a goal, what will happen is you will reduce immigration and you won’t save the Japanese people because their population will keep decreasing anyway.
> I'm saying all end goals are emotional, and if you want to achieve those goals you use reason.
That’s irrelevant because no country has figured out a way to raise birth rates through government action. Japan’s population will die out regardless of whether or not they have immigration. The method for achieving something can’t be conflated with the goal. If reducing immigration to save the Japanese people is a goal, what will happen is you will reduce immigration and you won’t save the Japanese people because their population will keep decreasing anyway.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 59 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,671
@1,425,669 (A)
> Only if you have no reading comprehension. You could copy and paste that into an AI and ask it if it's coherent, and ask it what it means. That's an objective test to determine if it's my writing or your comprehension skills that are the issue.
How do you think talking to an LLM is an objective test of how good your argument is?
> Only if you have no reading comprehension. You could copy and paste that into an AI and ask it if it's coherent, and ask it what it means. That's an objective test to determine if it's my writing or your comprehension skills that are the issue.
How do you think talking to an LLM is an objective test of how good your argument is?
Anonymous C triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,672
And you know what? I’m not a fan of AI, but watch this
Prompt: "Will lower immigration benefit the Japanese economy or lead to an increase in ethnically Japanese birth rates"
Prompt: "Will lower immigration benefit the Japanese economy or lead to an increase in ethnically Japanese birth rates"
Short answer: **lower immigration is unlikely to meaningfully boost Japan’s economy, and it’s very unlikely to raise ethnically Japanese birth rates.** In fact, it tends to make Japan’s core demographic and economic challenges harder, not easier. --- ### 1) Economic impact: lower immigration generally hurts more than it helps Japan is already dealing with: * A shrinking population * A rapidly aging workforce * Persistent labor shortages in sectors like healthcare, construction, and services Reducing immigration would likely: * **Worsen labor shortages**, limiting business growth * **Reduce total economic output (GDP)** because there are simply fewer workers * Increase pressure on the tax base needed to support pensions and healthcare Some argue it could raise wages for native workers, but in Japan’s case: * Wage growth has been structurally weak for decades * Many shortages are in jobs that are hard to fill domestically regardless of wages So overall, **less immigration = slower growth and more fiscal strain**, not a boost. --- ### 2) Birth rates: immigration policy doesn’t fix low fertility Japan’s low birth rate is driven by deep structural and cultural factors: * High cost of living and childrearing * Long working hours and work culture * Late marriage or non-marriage * Gender role expectations and childcare burdens There’s **no strong evidence** that reducing immigration causes native populations to have more children. Fertility decisions are shaped by: * Economic security * Work-life balance * Social norms Countries with very low immigration (like Japan historically) still have **very low birth rates**, which suggests: > Immigration levels are not the main driver of fertility. --- ### 3) What actually raises birth rates (if anything does) Policies that have shown modest success in some countries include: * Affordable childcare and housing * Paid parental leave * Flexible work arrangements * Greater gender equality Even then, increases are usually small and temporary. No developed country has sustainably returned to high birth rates. --- ### 4) The tradeoff Japan faces Japan is balancing two difficult realities: * **Without immigration** → faster population decline and economic contraction * **With immigration** → cultural and political challenges, but economic stabilization That’s why Japan has been slowly (and cautiously) expanding foreign worker programs rather than sharply reducing them. --- ### Bottom line * **Lower immigration will not solve Japan’s demographic crisis** * It will likely **weaken the economy** * It will **not significantly increase birth rates among ethnically Japanese people** If anything, Japan’s challenge is the opposite: figuring out how to combine **modest immigration with internal reforms** to avoid long-term decline. --- If you want, I can compare Japan to countries like South Korea or Italy that face similar issues—they’re all running into the same demographic wall in slightly different ways.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 5 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,673
@1,425,671 (C)
I didn't say it was an objective test of how good my argument was. Try reading what I wrote again.
I didn't say it was an objective test of how good my argument was. Try reading what I wrote again.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 39 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,674
If you ask AI about this topic, it’s just going to say what I’m saying!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 5 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,675
@1,425,672 (C)
So you are refusing to ask the AI if what I wrote was coherent? You're just going to posts walls of text to try and change the subject hoping no one notices what you are doing?
So you are refusing to ask the AI if what I wrote was coherent? You're just going to posts walls of text to try and change the subject hoping no one notices what you are doing?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 44 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,676
@previous (A)
Why would I? I asked the AI whether immigration would benefit Japan’s economy or if it would raise birth rates, and it gave a clear no to both.
Why would I? I asked the AI whether immigration would benefit Japan’s economy or if it would raise birth rates, and it gave a clear no to both.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 12 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,677
@1,425,674 (C)
The challenge was for you to ask if what I wrote was coherent and had meaning.
Asking random questions about this topic wasn't the question.
You claimed it meant nothing.
The challenge was for you to ask if what I wrote was coherent and had meaning.
Asking random questions about this topic wasn't the question.
You claimed it meant nothing.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 14 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,678
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 5 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,679
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 44 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,680
@previous (A)
It’s completely relevant. You said that you care about the survival of your tribe and you’re against immigration. Being against immigration doesn’t benefit the survival of your tribe.
It’s completely relevant. You said that you care about the survival of your tribe and you’re against immigration. Being against immigration doesn’t benefit the survival of your tribe.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 14 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,681
@1,425,678 (C)
If you don't care, fuck off.
You said the sentence meant nothing, but it's really not a complicated sentence to understand.
If you're whole shtick is that you act like you're too dumb to comprehend basic sentences, I'm not talking to you.
If you don't care, fuck off.
You said the sentence meant nothing, but it's really not a complicated sentence to understand.
If you're whole shtick is that you act like you're too dumb to comprehend basic sentences, I'm not talking to you.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 4 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,682
How are you this dense? You’re so fucking stupid!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,683
@1,425,680 (C)
No, we were talking about whether the sentence made sense.
You want to avoid asking the AI after you claimed it was meaningless, so now you are playing dumb and asking it a dozen questions that have nothing to do with the one question you were supposed to ask.
Stop being retarded, no one reading this is going to be tricked by you're multiple off-topic posts.
No, we were talking about whether the sentence made sense.
You want to avoid asking the AI after you claimed it was meaningless, so now you are playing dumb and asking it a dozen questions that have nothing to do with the one question you were supposed to ask.
Stop being retarded, no one reading this is going to be tricked by you're multiple off-topic posts.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 44 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,684
@previous (A)
No we weren’t, you were talking about that, because you want to distract from the fact that you’re wrong and you don’t know what you’re talking about and you admitted to the fact that your stance on immigration comes from emotion not fact.
No we weren’t, you were talking about that, because you want to distract from the fact that you’re wrong and you don’t know what you’re talking about and you admitted to the fact that your stance on immigration comes from emotion not fact.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 29 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,685
@1,425,682 (C)
Here was the sentence you said made no sense:
> Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason
If you are too stupid to know what that means, we can't have a discussion.
You are now refusing to ask the AI if it means anything because we both know it will easily understand it, but your niggerbrain never will.
Here was the sentence you said made no sense:
> Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason
If you are too stupid to know what that means, we can't have a discussion.
You are now refusing to ask the AI if it means anything because we both know it will easily understand it, but your niggerbrain never will.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 51 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,686
@1,425,684 (C)
I'm not playing this game. You are ignoring my points by pretending its gibberish, and then covering up that fact by spamming multiple posts to try and conceal that.
I'm not playing this game. You are ignoring my points by pretending its gibberish, and then covering up that fact by spamming multiple posts to try and conceal that.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 17 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,687
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 15 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,688
Quote me where I said that sentence didn’t make sense.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 55 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,689
@1,425,687 (C)
And I responded to your hypocrisy claim by saying:
> Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason
If you don't know what my rebuttal means, we can't talk because you don't have a grasp on the English language.
And I responded to your hypocrisy claim by saying:
> Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason
If you don't know what my rebuttal means, we can't talk because you don't have a grasp on the English language.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 42 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,690
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 21 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,691
Do you even know what the word hypocrisy means? It doesn’t seem like you do.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 27 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,692
@1,425,668 (C)
> > Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason.
>
> That was a lot of words to say nothing at all.
You said I said nothing at all, but this is a rebuttal to your point about how I said women were emotional.
If you want to continue the conversation, we can, but I'm not just skipping over important points because you don't know how to respond.
We need to settle this before we can move on, because everything else rests on this foundation.
> > Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason.
>
> That was a lot of words to say nothing at all.
You said I said nothing at all, but this is a rebuttal to your point about how I said women were emotional.
If you want to continue the conversation, we can, but I'm not just skipping over important points because you don't know how to respond.
We need to settle this before we can move on, because everything else rests on this foundation.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 50 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,694
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 51 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,695
@1,425,691 (C)
Hypocrisy is self-contradiction.
You said I was a hypocrite for calling women emotional, and then saying that all arguments (including mine) are ultimately set by emotion.
It's not a hypocritical argument and I explained why when I said:
> Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason.
Want to respond? Go ahead, that's my rebuttal, now you go.
So far you just said "that was a lot of words to say nothing at all." if you refuse to respond to my points, we can't have a conversation.
Hypocrisy is self-contradiction.
You said I was a hypocrite for calling women emotional, and then saying that all arguments (including mine) are ultimately set by emotion.
It's not a hypocritical argument and I explained why when I said:
> Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason.
Want to respond? Go ahead, that's my rebuttal, now you go.
So far you just said "that was a lot of words to say nothing at all." if you refuse to respond to my points, we can't have a conversation.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 53 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,696
@1,425,694 (C)
You said it says "nothing at all".
That's not a rebuttal, that's a refusal to engage with the argument.
If you refuse to engage, we can't have a conversation.
You said it says "nothing at all".
That's not a rebuttal, that's a refusal to engage with the argument.
If you refuse to engage, we can't have a conversation.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 11 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,697
When I said you used a lot of words to say nothing, that means you wrote some throwaway statement that doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t mean that the sentence doesn’t make sense. You can say something that makes sense that means nothing.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 32 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,698
@1,425,696 (A)
> You said it says "nothing at all".
Yeah, I did, and you said I said it doesn’t make sense. Those are two completely different things.
> You said it says "nothing at all".
Yeah, I did, and you said I said it doesn’t make sense. Those are two completely different things.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,699
@previous (C)
It doesn't really matter because either way you are refusing to respond to the point I made.
I responded to the hypocrisy claim, and you've made a dozen spam posts since refusing to respond to that.
I'll continue the conversation when you can respond to the point you have so far ignored. Telling me I said nothing isn't an actual rebuttal.
Bye 👋
It doesn't really matter because either way you are refusing to respond to the point I made.
I responded to the hypocrisy claim, and you've made a dozen spam posts since refusing to respond to that.
I'll continue the conversation when you can respond to the point you have so far ignored. Telling me I said nothing isn't an actual rebuttal.
Bye 👋
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 14 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,700
Because think about what you did.
I called you a hypocrite for basing your argument off of emotion instead of logic when you demand everybody else shouldn’t get emotional. Then you said, "Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason." Which is completely meaningless because anyone can say that about anything. It doesn’t make your argument more logical or less logical, because it doesn’t prove anything about anything, it’s just a subjective statement of opinion.
I called you a hypocrite for basing your argument off of emotion instead of logic when you demand everybody else shouldn’t get emotional. Then you said, "Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason." Which is completely meaningless because anyone can say that about anything. It doesn’t make your argument more logical or less logical, because it doesn’t prove anything about anything, it’s just a subjective statement of opinion.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 52 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,701
@1,425,699 (A)
> Bye 👋
Commit to it and stop talking to me because the last three times you said "bye" you kept talking afterwords and I really would rather you just shut up.
> Bye 👋
Commit to it and stop talking to me because the last three times you said "bye" you kept talking afterwords and I really would rather you just shut up.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 51 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,702
@1,425,700 (C)
It's not a statement of opinion, I distinguished two claims that you couldn't distinguish.
An opinion is when you share a preference, or speculation about something that cannot be settled.
Distinguishing between two claims is never an opinion.
It's not a statement of opinion, I distinguished two claims that you couldn't distinguish.
An opinion is when you share a preference, or speculation about something that cannot be settled.
Distinguishing between two claims is never an opinion.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 32 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,703
@1,425,701 (C)
> > Bye 👋
>
> Commit to it and stop talking to me because the last three times you said "bye" you kept talking afterwords and I really would rather you just shut up.
I said I was done until you could actually respond to my point.
Calling it an opinion is an idiotic response, but it is a response.
> > Bye 👋
>
> Commit to it and stop talking to me because the last three times you said "bye" you kept talking afterwords and I really would rather you just shut up.
I said I was done until you could actually respond to my point.
Calling it an opinion is an idiotic response, but it is a response.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 38 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,704
@1,425,702 (A)
Why did you say bye when you didn’t leave? Leave! You can’t even keep a damn promise to yourself.
Why did you say bye when you didn’t leave? Leave! You can’t even keep a damn promise to yourself.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 25 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,705
@1,425,703 (A)
> > > Bye 👋
> >
> > Commit to it and stop talking to me because the last three times you said "bye" you kept talking afterwords and I really would rather you just shut up.
>
> I said I was done until you could actually respond to my point.
>
> Calling it an opinion is an idiotic response, but it is a response.
Oh great so now I actually responded to your point so I won. Fantastic.
> > > Bye 👋
> >
> > Commit to it and stop talking to me because the last three times you said "bye" you kept talking afterwords and I really would rather you just shut up.
>
> I said I was done until you could actually respond to my point.
>
> Calling it an opinion is an idiotic response, but it is a response.
Oh great so now I actually responded to your point so I won. Fantastic.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,706
@previous (C)
You responded to a post where I distinguished two claim to call it an opinion.
All you did was show you don't know what an opinion is. That's not winning.
You responded to a post where I distinguished two claim to call it an opinion.
All you did was show you don't know what an opinion is. That's not winning.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,707
@previous (A)
Yeah, I was wrong because I didn’t respond to your point, so you said you wouldn’t talk to me until I responded to your point. But now you’re talking to me so I guess I responded to your point in a way that satisfies you so I won this conversation.
Yeah, I was wrong because I didn’t respond to your point, so you said you wouldn’t talk to me until I responded to your point. But now you’re talking to me so I guess I responded to your point in a way that satisfies you so I won this conversation.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,708
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 36 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,709
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 19 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,710
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 24 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,711
If you were so smart maybe you would have thought of that but you didn’t so whatever.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 hours ago, 41 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,712
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 17 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,713
@1,425,711 (C)
Good tactic, just pretend I said you'd win by responding with one on-topic post. There's so much of your spam to scroll past no one will bother to check lol
Good tactic, just pretend I said you'd win by responding with one on-topic post. There's so much of your spam to scroll past no one will bother to check lol
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,714
@1,425,712 (C)
If you didn't take these conversations so seriously I'd think you were a troll, but you're just nuts.
If you didn't take these conversations so seriously I'd think you were a troll, but you're just nuts.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 40 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,715
@1,425,713 (A)
Your argument is literally that you have feelings and my argument is quantifiable. You’re a dumbass.
Your argument is literally that you have feelings and my argument is quantifiable. You’re a dumbass.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,716
@previous (C)
I responded to your claim of hypocrisy and then you
1. Spammed a dozen times to try and change the subject.
2. Called distinguishing between two claims an opinion (it's not)
3. Lied and said I set the rules for winning as responding once on-topic.
Why would you need to do all that if you actually had a reasonable position?
I give up bud, if you are going to change the subject and confuse basic terms and just lie over and over to avoid one argument you don't know how to respond to then this will take forever and get nowhere.
This time I'm not coming back even if you do try and get back on track. Bye 👋
I responded to your claim of hypocrisy and then you
1. Spammed a dozen times to try and change the subject.
2. Called distinguishing between two claims an opinion (it's not)
3. Lied and said I set the rules for winning as responding once on-topic.
Why would you need to do all that if you actually had a reasonable position?
I give up bud, if you are going to change the subject and confuse basic terms and just lie over and over to avoid one argument you don't know how to respond to then this will take forever and get nowhere.
This time I'm not coming back even if you do try and get back on track. Bye 👋
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,717
@previous (A)
Great, don’t come back, and don’t talk to me in another thread either. I don’t like you.
Great, don’t come back, and don’t talk to me in another thread either. I don’t like you.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,720
"Should" isn’t an opinion is such a dumb thing to say. A normative statement is an opinion, a positive statement can be a statement of fact, but if you say something "should" be a way that it’s not that’s an opinion, it can’t be anything but an opinion.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Anonymous C triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,721
"Saying reason is a slave to the passions isn't the same thing as saying the passions alone should exist absent reason."
…if you’re saying something should be a way that it’s not that’s a normative statement and a normative statement is an opinion.
…if you’re saying something should be a way that it’s not that’s a normative statement and a normative statement is an opinion.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 24 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,732
@previous (C)Saying statement 1 is different than statement 2 isn't the same thing as saying statement 2 retard.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,734
Anonymous D replied with this 58 minutes ago, 9 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,425,737
@previous (C)
"normative statement 1 is different than normative statement 2" is a descriptive statement, not a normative one.
Don't be such a retard.
"normative statement 1 is different than normative statement 2" is a descriptive statement, not a normative one.
Don't be such a retard.