alphanullmeric

57 ms·

1.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Does your anarchism extend to the aforementioned left leaning foreign governments?
2.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Oh this is hilarious. Not only do you confirm that you wouldn't support them doing what they choose to with their service in the absence of government intervention, you would actively support the same government intervention you preten
3.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
While you're running away from that other yes or no question, I might as well try asking you this one - do you support privacy?
4.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
No. The US government should stay out of other countries business’. They should even stay out of NATO. But again, I’m sure you don’t have that level of consistency.
5.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
I don’t support any government bullying of private companies, although I’m sure any level of consistency would be unfamiliar to people like you. Should TikTok be allowed to control what goes onto their service? That’s a yes or no question.
6.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
TikTok is a private company and your use of their service is not a right.
7.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
So no, “it’s the law” doesn’t apply to you. Answer the question or I’ll answer it for you. Thanks for playing.
8.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Does “it’s the law” apply to all laws? Does “if you don’t like it then leave” apply to all people? Are you sure I can’t find a counterexample? You have yet to present a single consistent idea and I doubt either of these will be any differen
9.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
You are free to sacrifice your own privacy. This discussion is about whether you have the right to forcefully sacrifice mine. You’re only consistent in doing what benefits you, even if that means your support for a policy depends on who is
10.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
It’s how it works for people that lack consistency. If you don’t want absolute privacy then you are also free to support an absolute lack of it. “I want privacy except when it stops me from getting at other people’s money” is not an accepta
11.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Funny to see this make headlines here, where many people would gladly support using mass surveillance to fund the government. The same ones that support financial privacy restrictions are quick to play victim when the same violations are ap
12.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Compared to what? An equivalent framework costs more in Canada when you factor in a student discount.
13.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
I find it hilarious that you decided to respond to a single sentence out of my comment, and then proceeded to say exactly what I claimed you would say in the rest of my comment. If you can quantify the "indirect benefits" I get fr
14.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
That’s correct, you pay for what you use and don’t pay for what you don’t. It’s irrelevant as to how much something someone else chose to do benefitted me. My lemonade stand doesn’t owe the cinema you decided to open up next to me any money
15.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
There you go. So to answer the question you avoided, yes you are the only one asking to literally threaten others at gunpoint to enforce laws that allow you to violate a contract you voluntarily signed. You do not believe that force is only
16.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
It should be neither. Taxes should be a service fee proportional to your usage of a government service. Income shouldn’t even be part of the equation. The USPS charges more if you want to ship heavier packages, not if you get a raise. Perso
17.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
This is an EU country. Their response to not liking your overreach is to make it illegal to complain, mantle it illegal to leave.
18.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
ok. Say we didn't have ICE. How will you now justify holding others at gunpoint to violate a contract you voluntarily signed while having the part that benefits you still enforced? Or is immigration the only thing you were thinking of
19.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
It doesn't matter what you consider yourself. Or who is doing to considering, despite your efforts to emphasize that. The proofs are math. We've already established that math is sound. This discussion is not about the merits of ma
20.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
What gun? I see only the one you’re asking to be pointed at others.
21.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Sure thing. Then I'm sure you can evenly distribute seven marbles to four people, or make gold with alchemy. My prejudices must just be wrong.
22.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
It’s amazing how bad the competition is. The A17 pro has 2 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores. The Google G3 has 9 cores of 3 different types, the fastest being slower than Apple’s performance cores, the most efficient being less effi
23.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
It doesn't matter what they believed. Philosophy never involves rigorous proofs. By adding them you would just end up doing math. A partially finished proof is still math and not equivalent to 20 pages of worthless babble about human u
24.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Criticizing philosophy is philosophy so it cannot be criticized, the classic philosopher get out of jail free card. Philosophy is absolutely nothing like math. Math can be proven. Math maps to physical quantities. Changing how you interpret
25.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Is it a fact that the United States is the most free country? Your index isn’t called “index of phones by number of parts replaceable”, just like mine isn’t called “index of countries by gun ownership”. Like I said, you attached a number to
26.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Any kind of privacy. I don’t cherry pick like Europeans do.
27.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
And like before, if you isolate the philosophy in their work, it’s useless. Philosophy by a mathematician is still philosophy. There is a clear distinction between rigorous proofs and blathering about how people think, or making up a bunch
28.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
False hypotheses like the roundness of the Earth, or the existence of gravity, or the orbit around the sun? All of which have been denied in the past by philosophers and other pseudoscientists with cultural “proofs” to the contrary? Attachi
29.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
No, it isn’t. “Do you support privacy” is a yes or no question, not a “depends on for who” question.
30.
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
We worry less about other people’s money from this side of the ocean. You lack the consistency to make a statement of support/opposition about all privacy, because like other Europeans, you feel the need to make exceptions for cases th

More ›