Albuquerque Ryan

An Albuquerque native even when I'm not there.  Please, legal adults only.  My views are my own only and not those of any group, organization, or corporation.  If I say something you don't like, oh well

[l0std1adem]

[chilled-welsh-sam]

Consider this: Nazis need to shut the fuck up

[abqryan]

Forcing someone to shut the fuck up because you don't like their ideas doesn't prove those ideas wrong and it doesn't convince that person not to hold those ideas.

Showing nazis how they are wrong gets rid of nazis, making nazis shut the fuck up only hides them from view. Do you care about evil ideas existing or do you care about seeing them and getting scared?

[vibass]

showing nazis how they're wrong doesn't get rid of them. they don't care about truth. you can't convince anti vaxxers or climate deniers or transphobes using facts and logic, because they don't actually care about those things. talking over them, mocking them, are much more effective because they stop those ideas from spreading any further.

[abqryan]

You are astonishingly wrong and then go on to demonstrate exactly how limiting opinions and voices exactly does not eliminate stupid ass ideas, like believing in catastrophic man caused climate change or blind belief in untested vaccines.

I do appreciate the opportunities you provided however, to take the course of action you suggest of talking over stupid ideas and mocking them by providing so many such stupid ideas yourself. Truly a very giving response, I am sorry I did not see it sooner to be able to mock your idiocy in a more timely fashion.

[mogwai-movie-house]

[fiyabwal]

Also you have to give them a legitimate shot, and not just have any opposing veiwpoints be caricatures or strawmen.

The originals worked because they didnt preach or browbeat but displayed both sides and showed why their society had chosen one option over the other, while still giving consideration to the people they were discussing with.

Unless it was a legitimate human rights issue like genocide or slavery, differences would be implied one way is better but it was never looked down upon or lambasted for being "backwards"

They trusted their audience to think, and let them come to their own conclusions.

[youngestthunderbird]

Funnily enough, the Orville did a better job at this than any modern Star Trek show. Even the episodes concerning trans issues can be interpreted several different ways.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Yeah, I noticed that. At least the few I've seen about the issue with the Moclans.

[abqryan]

Orville was certainly more like classic Trek in this regard than most of the modern Trek. I would say some of the Strange New Worlds episodes are better, but certainly nothing in Discovery at all.

Star Trek was rarely political (I would contend never) but they very often touched on social issues, some of which were strictly off limits on TV at the time, but they got away with it by being subtle, and by including differing viewpoints. There have even been plenty of episodes and issues where the resolution of the episode intentionally found a loophole for the specific situation while leaving the larger, overall social issue unresolved.

That was a big part of what made Star Trek so successful, that it wasn't preachy about the topics it did address and it admitted, at least in practice, that sometimes the right answer isn't obvious or can't be achieved. I think that area is the one where Orville is most different from most of the modern Star Trek and more like classic Trek, in leaving some things unresolved and unresolvable.

[percistent]

The legal system is broken when you can murder someone for their political beliefs and get less time than someone who damaged a fence at the capital.

[abqryan]

Didn't they impeach Trump for speech that they claimed made people violent?

Shouldn't that same logic require Biden be impeached for inciting this murder?

[not-very-kawaii-of-you]

[percistent]

I hope to raise my kids to defend themselves from violent communist sex offenders.

[abqryan]

Based on the actions he is famous for and the video around it I feel it is unlikely Kyle would practice such poor gun safety as pointing directly at a camera which is presumably being held in someone's hand, especially with a finger on the trigger.

[anarchpunk]

If government is a "necessary evil" why am I not allowed to collect rain water or feed the homeless? What's necessary about these laws and their enforcement in the first place?

[abqryan]

Pointing out a shitty stupid thing the government does is not addressing the issue of the government being necessary or not.

It's like saying, "If tires are necessary on a car why do my hubcaps keep falling off?"

[distributing-direwolves]

Yeah well if you refuse to do any maintenance on your car and it keeps fucking up on you in a way that could screw over other people, it's fair to suggest maybe you can't be trusted with a car.

[abqryan]

But does any of that have anything at all to do with if I need a car or not?

Thanks for kind of sort of proving my initial point, even though you did so by badly mangling my initial comparison which leads me to believe it likely was not understood.

[distributing-direwolves]

Enjoy your small local government gun ban, faggot.

[abqryan]

I am having a great deal of trouble understanding why so many responses to this post include these three things; ignoring my point completely, totally random and illogical personal attacks, and badly assuming my beliefs.

I won't ask you to make assumptions for others, but could you possibly explain why you personally responded this way?

[anarchpunk]

If government is a "necessary evil" why am I not allowed to collect rain water or feed the homeless? What's necessary about these laws and their enforcement in the first place?

[abqryan]

Pointing out a shitty stupid thing the government does is not addressing the issue of the government being necessary or not.

It's like saying, "If tires are necessary on a car why do my hubcaps keep falling off?"

[wageronvoluntaryism]

You have a few loose screws, and I'm not referring to your hubcaps.

[abqryan]

A nonsensical personal attack is getting even further from proving any sort of point about the need or lack of need for a government.

[wageronvoluntaryism]

Meanwhile, hubcaps falling off cars is such a good analogy for the murderous, rapist, pedophile government we actually have.

A poorly maintained car is not comparable to the evils a government must perform as a function of its existence, such as coercing people to pay supposedly for certain goods and services and then use those funds in at best inefficient, at worst horrifically immoral fashion.

Going back to your original argument though -- "Pointing out a shitty stupid thing the government does is not addressing the issue of the government being necessary or not" -- precisely how many shitty stupid things must a government do before the question of the government being necessary can be legitimately raised?

Do you need a government to prosecute a war against minorities and dissidents that ruins families and futures over victimless crimes? That's already happened.

Do you need a government to decline to bring to justice its enforcers that rape and murder citizens? That's already happened.

Do you need a government that spies on its people, oppresses and suppresses people that seek and spread the truth about the government's misdeeds? That's already happened.

Do you need a government to prosecute an unconstitutional and indefinite war against third world countries that never attacked the United States, that results in the deaths of 4.5 million people, the malnutrition of 7.6 million children, 38 million people displaced and made refugees from violence, and uncounted millions traumatized by the horrors of war? That's already happened.

Do you need a government cover-up of a pedophile trafficking ring, probably because government officials are involved in said pedophile trafficking ring? That's already happened.

Do you need a president to molest a minor on national television? That's already happened.

How many more "shitty stupid things" is it going to take before I can ask, "is government necessary"?

Or are you just a soulless asshole, too lazy to stand up for the innocent and the helpless, too addicted to your creature comforts, to even ask "can there possibly be a better way?"

You contemptible cretin. I will insult and degrade you and anyone like you as I please, so long as you insist on being a craven bootlicker and a morally bankrupt coward.

[abqryan]

Nowhere was anyone comparing a car to the government.

My example was that a comment about hubcaps not addressing the need of tires is similar to the original statement in that neither issue stated addresses the conclusion. The comparison is about the argument format, not comparing the topics of the arguments to each other.

You may certainly raise the question of government necessity at any time; I believe the question absolutely should be raised, and often. My entire point was that saying it does one thing poorly does not even address this question. Even the list of other problems you provided in your response does not actually address the necessity of government. Government has often been called a necessary evil, the only thing any of these arguments or issues have done is supported the evil portion of that statement, without even discussing the necessity.

The initial post drew a direct line from the government does one thing badly to the government should not exist and that is neither a reasoned argument or one that could ever possibly convince any logical or reasoned thinker on its own as it does not address necessity, only one incredibly minor aspect of government performance. That was my point, that the example given does not touch on the issue of the conclusion.

I am far from a soulless asshole or any sort of bootlicker. I am not in any way advocating that the government is necessary or that the necessity of the government should not be questioned or that much larger and worse actions than those initially mentioned should be forgiven when performed by the government or anyone else for that matter.

All that I am saying from the very first response consistently throughout all subsequent replies, is that pointing out one minor bad thing the government does is not an actual argument or discussion on if the government is or is not necessary.

I have basically restated this now a number of different times with slight variation, in the hope that my meaning will be able to be understood better than it was initially.

Your personal condemnation and insults are not necessary, reasonable, nor productive as they are based not on my comments or my beliefs, but entirely on your misunderstanding of what I said and projection of a belief set you have incorrectly assigned to me based on that misunderstanding. They also, even more so than the original argument, have nothing at all to do with the question of government necessity.

[wageronvoluntaryism]

You keep saying "i don't believe government is necessary" and then you keep crying about evil actions by government aren't proof government isn't necessary.

Sounds like you think government is necessary despite the government doing evil things.

So I'm correct to treat you as a morally bankrupt statist and you can keep coping about it.

[abqryan]

Oh my fucking God, you are so damned dense, I feel at this point it must be intentional.

My entire point the entire time has been that saying the government did one small thing bad does not address if government is or is not necessary. You have yet to reply to this point in any way.

My own beliefs about government necessity are not relevant at all to the point I have made and repeated over and over that the argument was a poorly formed one. That's why I have largely not mentioned them, which has lead to you amazingly stupidly calling me a statist with neither reason or evidence to support your claim.

The assumption that someone disagrees with a position simply because they say the argument is not very good at presenting or supporting that position, even after the multiple and repeated explanations, is proving only that if you are capable of actual reading comprehension and thought you have chosen not to apply either at any moment of this particular situation.

So, good day to you, you damned fucking moron. Hence forth I will be affording any reply from you the same level of reading or replying as you have put to anything I have actually said, which is none at all. Though, unlike you, I will avoid nonsensical insults and miss-characterizations.

[abqryan]

I had already graduated then, but still I feel like sharing this Facebook post from my old high school band director.

[anarchpunk]

If government is a "necessary evil" why am I not allowed to collect rain water or feed the homeless? What's necessary about these laws and their enforcement in the first place?

[abqryan]

Pointing out a shitty stupid thing the government does is not addressing the issue of the government being necessary or not.

It's like saying, "If tires are necessary on a car why do my hubcaps keep falling off?"

[distributing-direwolves]

Yeah well if you refuse to do any maintenance on your car and it keeps fucking up on you in a way that could screw over other people, it's fair to suggest maybe you can't be trusted with a car.

[abqryan]

But does any of that have anything at all to do with if I need a car or not?

Thanks for kind of sort of proving my initial point, even though you did so by badly mangling my initial comparison which leads me to believe it likely was not understood.

[rod-and-gun]

[abqryan]

[abqryan]

[virtualanarchy]

[girlactionfigure]

[angrybell]

Welles Crowther was an equities trader that worked on the 104th floor of the south tower. He was a volunteer firefighter growing up, and had dreams to either join the FDNY, CIA, or FBI.

At 9:03 am, Flight 175 struck the south tower between floors 77 to 85. Welles started to make his way down the tower when he ran into a few survivors of the impact. He put one of the survivors on his back and led the group to the only open stairwell. Once below the carnage, Welles made his way back up the tower, while the others ran to safety. Survivors would talk about seeing a man wearing a red bandana over his face, and how he helped them down the tower to safety.

Welles was identified in March 2002 surrounded by firefighters, and other emergency personnel. Medical examiners determined that Welles was still helping people evacuate the building when it collapsed at 9:59 am.

From #zerofoxtrot IG

[anarchpunk]

If government is a "necessary evil" why am I not allowed to collect rain water or feed the homeless? What's necessary about these laws and their enforcement in the first place?

[abqryan]

Pointing out a shitty stupid thing the government does is not addressing the issue of the government being necessary or not.

It's like saying, "If tires are necessary on a car why do my hubcaps keep falling off?"

[wageronvoluntaryism]

You have a few loose screws, and I'm not referring to your hubcaps.

[abqryan]

A nonsensical personal attack is getting even further from proving any sort of point about the need or lack of need for a government.

[wageronvoluntaryism]

Meanwhile, hubcaps falling off cars is such a good analogy for the murderous, rapist, pedophile government we actually have.

A poorly maintained car is not comparable to the evils a government must perform as a function of its existence, such as coercing people to pay supposedly for certain goods and services and then use those funds in at best inefficient, at worst horrifically immoral fashion.

Going back to your original argument though -- "Pointing out a shitty stupid thing the government does is not addressing the issue of the government being necessary or not" -- precisely how many shitty stupid things must a government do before the question of the government being necessary can be legitimately raised?

Do you need a government to prosecute a war against minorities and dissidents that ruins families and futures over victimless crimes? That's already happened.

Do you need a government to decline to bring to justice its enforcers that rape and murder citizens? That's already happened.

Do you need a government that spies on its people, oppresses and suppresses people that seek and spread the truth about the government's misdeeds? That's already happened.

Do you need a government to prosecute an unconstitutional and indefinite war against third world countries that never attacked the United States, that results in the deaths of 4.5 million people, the malnutrition of 7.6 million children, 38 million people displaced and made refugees from violence, and uncounted millions traumatized by the horrors of war? That's already happened.

Do you need a government cover-up of a pedophile trafficking ring, probably because government officials are involved in said pedophile trafficking ring? That's already happened.

Do you need a president to molest a minor on national television? That's already happened.

How many more "shitty stupid things" is it going to take before I can ask, "is government necessary"?

Or are you just a soulless asshole, too lazy to stand up for the innocent and the helpless, too addicted to your creature comforts, to even ask "can there possibly be a better way?"

You contemptible cretin. I will insult and degrade you and anyone like you as I please, so long as you insist on being a craven bootlicker and a morally bankrupt coward.

[abqryan]

Nowhere was anyone comparing a car to the government.

My example was that a comment about hubcaps not addressing the need of tires is similar to the original statement in that neither issue stated addresses the conclusion. The comparison is about the argument format, not comparing the topics of the arguments to each other.

You may certainly raise the question of government necessity at any time; I believe the question absolutely should be raised, and often. My entire point was that saying it does one thing poorly does not even address this question. Even the list of other problems you provided in your response does not actually address the necessity of government. Government has often been called a necessary evil, the only thing any of these arguments or issues have done is supported the evil portion of that statement, without even discussing the necessity.

The initial post drew a direct line from the government does one thing badly to the government should not exist and that is neither a reasoned argument or one that could ever possibly convince any logical or reasoned thinker on its own as it does not address necessity, only one incredibly minor aspect of government performance. That was my point, that the example given does not touch on the issue of the conclusion.

I am far from a soulless asshole or any sort of bootlicker. I am not in any way advocating that the government is necessary or that the necessity of the government should not be questioned or that much larger and worse actions than those initially mentioned should be forgiven when performed by the government or anyone else for that matter.

All that I am saying from the very first response consistently throughout all subsequent replies, is that pointing out one minor bad thing the government does is not an actual argument or discussion on if the government is or is not necessary.

I have basically restated this now a number of different times with slight variation, in the hope that my meaning will be able to be understood better than it was initially.

Your personal condemnation and insults are not necessary, reasonable, nor productive as they are based not on my comments or my beliefs, but entirely on your misunderstanding of what I said and projection of a belief set you have incorrectly assigned to me based on that misunderstanding. They also, even more so than the original argument, have nothing at all to do with the question of government necessity.

[anarchpunk]

If government is a "necessary evil" why am I not allowed to collect rain water or feed the homeless? What's necessary about these laws and their enforcement in the first place?

[abqryan]

Pointing out a shitty stupid thing the government does is not addressing the issue of the government being necessary or not.

It's like saying, "If tires are necessary on a car why do my hubcaps keep falling off?"

[murray-wrathbard]

The government is not necessary, hope that helps

[abqryan]

The original metaphor is poor (I would not say it's retarded, but you chose to in the tags), because the government doing one thing that is horrible does not address if the government is or is not necessary.

Likewise, simply stating that the government is not necessary is not an actual argument or any support for your stance. It hold as much weight as if I was to say @murray-wrathbard is an ugly pointy eared Orc from Lord of the Rings.

[anarchpunk]

What's necessary about government that private individuals can't do on their own?

[abqryan]

I never said the government was necessary or is needed to do anything private individuals can't. I am not in any way at any point here disagreeing with any statement on the necessity of government, I am saying the initial post drew a conclusion that it provided zero support for.

Pointing out that the government does one thing very badly does not address the topic of the government being necessary or provide any argument to support or oppose the stance of it not being necessary. Just as simply stating it is not necessary provides no supporting argument to that stance.

[abqryan]

I realized I should answer the question posed as well. It is a much better question to get to the topic of government necessity than the original post was and certainly worthy of being addressed.

In my opinion there are two primary areas where the government can meet a need better than private individuals. The first is national defense and basically maintaining the definition of a nation separate from other areas where particular agreed upon rules and laws apply. And the second is to have an authoritative final definitive method of conflict resolution.

Basically, the military and the judicial system. Though I would agree that the fighting portion of the military and nation definition piece could more efficiently be completed by private citizens, perhaps with government leadership.

I have long believed the role of the government should basically be to step in and resolve what happens when people try to fuck with each other and interfere with basic rights and autonomy. Be that at the level of nations or individuals.

I do not personally believe there is really any other role or need for which the government is the best answer or solution aside from that very short list.

[anarchpunk]

If government is a "necessary evil" why am I not allowed to collect rain water or feed the homeless? What's necessary about these laws and their enforcement in the first place?

[abqryan]

Pointing out a shitty stupid thing the government does is not addressing the issue of the government being necessary or not.

It's like saying, "If tires are necessary on a car why do my hubcaps keep falling off?"

[murray-wrathbard]

The government is not necessary, hope that helps

[abqryan]

The original metaphor is poor (I would not say it's retarded, but you chose to in the tags), because the government doing one thing that is horrible does not address if the government is or is not necessary.

Likewise, simply stating that the government is not necessary is not an actual argument or any support for your stance. It hold as much weight as if I was to say @murray-wrathbard is an ugly pointy eared Orc from Lord of the Rings.

[anarchpunk]

What's necessary about government that private individuals can't do on their own?

[abqryan]

I never said the government was necessary or is needed to do anything private individuals can't. I am not in any way at any point here disagreeing with any statement on the necessity of government, I am saying the initial post drew a conclusion that it provided zero support for.

Pointing out that the government does one thing very badly does not address the topic of the government being necessary or provide any argument to support or oppose the stance of it not being necessary. Just as simply stating it is not necessary provides no supporting argument to that stance.