Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.
Aug 2, 2011
As Thunder Rumbles, From An Undetermined Distance
The contemporary likelihood of an event or set of events communicates little to nothing about the comparative value of an outcome one might prefer.
I yearn for simpler times when we could just Punch a Motherfucker. Not that either you or the rumbler qualifies as the receiving end, in my humble view. But surely, surely there is a motherfucker to be found to absorb our ire, no?
If you want to tell people "that Social Security that you like so much?...it's just an evil tool of the plutocracy", then you have to explain what will be better for them if they didn't have it.
Or at least, why their sacrifice will be worth it for the greater good. And that's going to be tougher. ~
I think I missed part of this, but I disagree that Mr. Crow is obliged to "explain what will be better for them if they didn't have [Social Security]".
Stating a fact about a particular state of affairs does not oblige the speaker to provide an alternative.
I'm simply suggesting that the likelihood of an outcome says nothing about why or how one should preference it.
To argue that social security or the Presidency aren't going to abolished any time soon, so therefore the real struggle should be how to make them better is to limit the debate to begging for scraps from those who control both.
I'm choosing to take this personally*.
ReplyDeleteI yearn for simpler times when we could just Punch a Motherfucker. Not that either you or the rumbler qualifies as the receiving end, in my humble view. But surely, surely there is a motherfucker to be found to absorb our ire, no?
Warmth.
*No, I'm not. Clocks are funny, though.
I found thunder's snark indicative of victimhood and comfort in that status.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to tell people "that Social Security that you like so much?...it's just an evil tool of the plutocracy", then you have to explain what will be better for them if they didn't have it.
ReplyDeleteOr at least, why their sacrifice will be worth it for the greater good. And that's going to be tougher.
~
jesus
ReplyDeleteit's not Jack's fault the SuperCongress is doing what it's doing
does being such an obtuse, clueless cock come naturally to you?
I think I missed part of this, but I disagree that Mr. Crow is obliged to "explain what will be better for them if they didn't have [Social Security]".
ReplyDeleteStating a fact about a particular state of affairs does not oblige the speaker to provide an alternative.
I'm simply suggesting that the likelihood of an outcome says nothing about why or how one should preference it.
ReplyDeleteTo argue that social security or the Presidency aren't going to abolished any time soon, so therefore the real struggle should be how to make them better is to limit the debate to begging for scraps from those who control both.