Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "ReasonTV" channel.

@MrLilpapy tbf, plenty of communists don't understand crap about their own stories, generally morons who don't have an original idea in their head can't think outside the box, those who do portray concepts that don't in fact agree with their precepts logically and results in cognitive dissonance between the narrative and the writer.
17
@infinitemonkey917 Writers who misunderstand their own story exist and this a clear case of it, a writer who makes a story that disagrees or doesn't address the precepts they claim it does is a foolish writer who doesn't understand what they're actually writing. A good story can be written by such fools. This is actually part of the premise of the "writer is dead" philosophy of writing, though many make the assumption that it means what the writer said it meant when written when that's in fact not true. What is true is the single (which there is of all narratives) interpretation according to the objective events presented in the narrative. That can and often does disagree with the writers precepts about the story because they get stuck into the story and misunderstand it from being too heavily invested alongside being an ideologue. A theme in a work is not objectively followed by what the writer says it is, a story's theme is inherent to the story in disregard to the writer's opinion.
10
 @infinitemonkey917 You do realize that's not a refutation of what I said right, you're not presenting an argument, that's ipse dixit, a fallacy.
9
@infinitemonkey917 "Your entire argument is nothing but an unsupported opinion that I reject." I addressed at least two philosophies with rational backing towards their premises, you presented none. I also said "A good story can be written by such fools." which you are required to address by more then just saying "you know better" as if that's a refutation. You don't get to handwave that by simply mimicking what I've said so as to mock me. Its not a substance argument. I also told you a story is presented as it is with objective demonstration of its premise regardless of the opinion of the author according to its narrative. We take interpretation not by authorial intent when started or finished, for anyone who does such things has a subjective worldview, which actually makes you incapable to argue against any point since I can't possibly be wrong then. Instead we take interpretation by the themes and events of the narrative according to rationality and presented features of the work in which we build a basis for objective truth. Every narrative and artistry, just as every life lived, has this and it was recognized in fact for centuries before the post-modernist perspective infected the west and made us literally incapable of basic rationality. In this you can not say the author is the penultimate authority of a works interpretation when presented to an audience, and neither does the audience decide that, its the story that does that in disregard to both. Just because one admits or knows of the bias and influences that anyone has does not make reality change, reality is objective and irrefutable and story is much the same. We can disagree on some aspects but that is where opinion lies. We can not argue over fact. "You also posted it 6 times - so maybe delete some of them." Blame youtube for targeting me and randomly dropping my posts whenever it feels like it, sometimes I get 20 posts out in a second, other times I can't post for 6 months straight. "You post a long winded subjective, opinionated comment" How about you quote me and tell me where I presented a lack of objective rationally? I presented two fundamental audience philosophies that operate on the principle of objective reality and argued against the supposition of them being opinionated in the first place. "full of ad hominems" Where? Calling someone a fool when they don't present an argument or who present an unsubstantiated argument is not ad hominem, assigning names and insults don't by nature mean ad hominem, ad hominem is an argumentative fallacy, you have to have a position or rational opposition. And given you're the only one with such and I never once called you that it can't possibly be ad hominem. And that aside being a fool or moron is a statement of fact, it has nothing to do with me reducing or harming an argumentative position, the inherent result of the position presented would make them fools, that's not as an argument itself, its the result of an argument. (so even if a writer I called a fool was in the opposition, they couldn't be subject to the fallacy since the argument wasn't about them being a fool, it results in them being made the fool by proxy which I'm merely pointing out) "without any actual evidence of anything" Rationality is inherent evidence, those who believe they need evidence in hand and don't believe evidence by word is by its nature evidence doesn't understand the basics of rationality. There is a reason the courts rely on alibis and multiple independent witnesses even without demonstrative evidence, that is because the reason itself is self-evident and qualifies itself, it needs no other testimony to itself. "you accuse me of ipse dixit." You made a baseless statement to try and undermine mine my position, you didn't present any reason nor refute anything I said. And then you did "Oh the irony of dip shitery." Which is coming awfully close to ad hominem, not to mention that a fallacy by itself does not by nature refute a position, it merely states that your argumentation was invalid for said position. All that said its also a fallacy to accuse others of a fallacy without addressing the fallacy, and given you didn't even address what I said it might as well be said you have no position to stand on. Technically you committed a few fallacies in few words but regardless, your position is neither objective nor rational and you've yet to refute what I've said.
8
@KjngKhanh He doesn't even know what capitalism is, so he couldn't possibly portray it well, he blamed socialist problems on capitalism and then called it a critique of capitalism. He also doesn't understand what volunteerism is because that also completely destroys his entire argument if it even was about capitalism.
7
@djy0tub3r The evidence for sexual abuse literally makes no sense, not only was it not proven, but the claims to them having evidence made no logical sense, it could only make sense to say it was 100% fabricated.
7
@infinitemonkey917 "In other words all stories make a point at the beginning." That's a completely unrelated quote, like even thought that specific part is true, that's completely irrelevant to the point being made. "A story is designed, from beginning to end, to answer a single overarching question" Not necessarily, and I never postulated this, it could, but it also could simply not seek answers to a question, that's not relevant to what I said. As an example, there are many Japanese stories don't pose questions, they merely exist for the sake of comfort and fluff. You watch or read them simply for the engagement of being comforted by the show that even the author did not contemplate, and its not down to the author to describe the intent of the show even still, they can only describe what they believed their intent was as they wrote, that's not the same as that being the intent of the story. "which complicates as the story progresses." This premise is false, again its irrelevant to the point and even further its not often true, some stories progress to become more complicated, but if you assume that's how all stories, including those those that pose questions, must do then you need to read more. There are plenty of stories where the questions they pose did not complicate themselves as the story was written, and yet the author could still be wrong about what they believe they wrote into the story. "You have failed to demonstrate how Squid Game violates the basic rules of story telling such as this." Well I just demonstrated foremost that nothing you said is a basic rule of storytelling and even if it was, its completely irrelevant to the subject at hand that being how an author could and is very capable to misunderstand their own works and completely fail at reading the narratives intent despite their agenda to the contrary. I have no obligation to demonstrate that. "Your qualm seems to be that you don't like his critique of capitalism in the form of a story." Its not a critique of capitalism most especially because he doesn't know what capitalism is. And that aside he doesn't understand what he wrote as a result of his lack of knowledge and wisdom on any of the topics he was addressing, as a result the story's premise got away from him and the agenda of the story represents none of his ideological interjections. He literally presented a socialistic (because that's what it is, government management of the means of productions is government ownership of the means of productions, state capitalism is socialism, not capitalism) worldview where people voluntarily risk their lives in order to cross the class boundary drawn in socialism. And that's how socialism actually works, its the peasant class vs. the government class, anyone who frames it differently hasn't read Marx at all and most certainly doesn't understand anything about economics. They probably don't even understand any form of governance or political theory. "So you claim that he has violated rules of story telling." Red herring.
6
@KjngKhanh Does seem like it since he explicitly told us what the art is, you don't describe your intent if you're letting the art speak for itself.
3
@answerman9933 David Koresh was probably the most sane out of any leadership involved, there was an attempted walk out at one point and the ATF still shot at them despite the lack of a gun involved in the walkout.
3
First off, it you want to kill Big Tech, get the government to stop intervening and funding it, no taxes, no tax exemptions, no subsidies, nothing should encourage or fund tech corporations. This includes the CIA, FBI, and NASA have to be legally restricted (under penalty of treason and capital punishment) from participating in any contributions towards the tech companies. That would be the first step to actually kill the anti-liberty monopolistic corporate tech companies. (within 5 years, if you do that, they will stop censoring and if they don't, they'll go bankrupt) Secondly IP law is just another systematic form of enforced monopoly (like the anti-trust and monopoly laws we have) by government. Its just a step closer to publicized services and corporate domination of the market. If you want to stop the encroaching evil of big tech, killing IP law, specifically tech related IP law, will force them to relinquish the the power to control the systems so capability.
2
@KjngKhanh You do realize criticism is a negative word, not a positive one? It means you are predisposed to opposition of the subject from the outset, unless he qualifies it, it means he is blaming capitalism, not to mention the "criticism" concept makes no sense since there is no capitalism in the story, everything is about socialism cause he thinks cronyism is capitalism, but its literally socialism, specifically its syndicalism which leads to communism..
2
@KjngKhanh criticism: the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing the act of criticizing someone or something criticizing: to express disapproval of (someone or something) to talk about the problems or faults of (someone or something) critique: an act of criticizing Stop you don't get to play pedantics, critique and criticism are of the same context and intonation and are the exact same root work, criticism is literally the act of criticizing something, by arguing this especially with the terms in context you have demonstrated you don't understand what you're talking about.
2
@KjngKhanh Quoting Merriam-Webster is apparently biased towards me despite the fact they are one of the biggest dictionary companies I disagree with.
2
@KjngKhanh "Did you even go to college?" I make more money not going to college, so no. (not to mention most colleges are communist paradises anyway, I lose more money then I gain at them and I know everything they could teach me in my field, I won't get into it now but I have a grasp of where my experience and knowledge lies compared to college) and also that's not academic English, its still not standardized by anything or anyone. Seriously, point me to a standard that is objectively followed and isn't following collectively established English. (most especially with "academic" English old-set long established grammar and vocabulary) I will warn you now as someone who has looked there isn't one but go ahead and try. "When analyzing a piece of formal art. You use academic language." You know the ironic thing is the way you wrote that invalidated your own claim aside from the fact that you used an appeal to accomplishment fallacy to substantiate your argument. You didn't present any rational and neither did you refute what I've said. Technically its also an Ipse Dixit fallacy since its a baseless claim as well. (and actually a red herring since you are deluding from a point you couldn't demonstrate objectively through rational so you switched the topic, which also yes is a fallacy) And that aside since when is art considered formal? That's not an oxymoron, that's a contradiction, art is not a standard and neither is it standardized, nor is it formalized, the closest you have is the tools for art are standardized but that doesn't make art standardized nor formal. Analyzing art from a "formal" or "academic" (which is utterly stupid as well, the inherent nature of art makes it impossible to academically reflect for it does not give a ground empirical view but an objectively subjective one) perspective is elitist and pretentious as hell since it makes no actual sense. Its the humble and low that give value to art, not the formal, when they claim such things they merely steal from the low to thieve the prestige that should not be earned. Also its ridiculous for you to make the claim that "academic" English cares nothing for context when the entire point of language is contextual communication.
2
The thing I hate the most about the "German higher critiques of capitalism" is that they try to portray competition as a bad thing and against a natural state. But they're so stupid that they forget their systems only function at the behest and assumption of competition dragging everyone down and lifting no one up. Where as in true Capitalism, John Locke's Capitalism, the free market without government interference, only in that case does competition have capability to lift people up and help others. Communism is about hording and selfishness, capitalism uses selfishness to combat itself and correct the human condition.
1
@KjngKhanh He doesn't have to tell them its a critique of anything, but it seems instead of using it to manipulate communists to realize what its actually criticizing, he actually believes his own claims, albeit them being totally wrong.
1
@KjngKhanh I referenced the first definition, and secondly you don't understand English if you are gonna act like criticism and criticizing don't apply to equally as connotative terms that share intonation with each other, no single dictionary would agree with that and neither would any native. Go and ask 100 people whether a "criticism of capitalism" would look kindly upon capitalism and see what they say, since language is made of collective understanding. Even further I say that all language is defined by contextual relation to terms, English most especially so, and there has never been a "criticism of capitalism" that has meant a good thing because in every case they aren't criticizing capitalism, they're criticizing human nature and blaming capitalism as the problem. Show me in one case where you can criticize capitalism? And even further you seem to not understand how to read context since contextually you don't leave the door open for "criticism" when you didn't criticize your subject. He literally didn't criticize capitalism at damn all even with all that because there was no capitalism.
1
@KjngKhanh English doesn't have academic language, there is no formal definition nor standard committee, the fact you weren't capable to argue with what I said demonstrates a lack of evidence in reason so you resort to manipulating the goal post.
1
@KjngKhanh "you are selectively choosing the definition that supports your argument" Not really, I'm using common definitions with common intonations that regular people use, I'm literally using the context for the phrase that is exclusive to the phrasing, there is no positive manner for which you can describe "criticism of capitalism" because the rational nature of it is perfect and can't be examining in a manner which perceives negatives unless you don't live in reality and believe nature is something that it is not. Only those with psychosis can make a claim for a "criticism of capitalism" for it is a perfect inhibition and regulator of the fallen design. It needs no help nor is it imperfect in moral principle for it retains the perfect capability of justice, morality, volunteerism, and ownership. You can't be critical of capitalism, you can only maybe critical of nature, but that's our blame, not a system's blame, for which capitalism is correcting perfectly inherently. "while disregarding the second definition that is more precise and relevant to the subject." Context and reason already disagree with you, nobody says "criticism of capitalism" and means to say any reason since capitalism is objectively perfect and good in purpose and design. Even further you didn't refute what I said, you're just saying I'm being exclusive which you're doing the same thing. If we examine it in a vacuum without context of language and history of English and the West, then perhaps it could be up in the air, even though rationally that still makes no sense since you can't criticize capitalism, but no way can you claim that you're not being selective with your abuse of the definitions. I'm not being selective, I'm being contextual, only if we strip all capable context including rational does your definition actually even come into capable play. If it requires all that effort before consideration that suggests most certainly that it is in fact not in play as a result of Occam's Razor. And again you've yet to present rational to support this, that's an Ipse Dixit, a baseless claim. "That's why it's called academic language," I have never heard anyone use such a claim (and I know an awful lot of college educated folks as non-college folks, where pray tell does it ever come into play?) before nor make a claim to its existence, can you provide evidence for its foundation and objective standard, one that is not relative to collective understanding of language? "because it allows you to use precise diction not necessarily based on its colloquial meanings." That makes no sense, language is literally about collective communication, that's the whole point of having a language. The reason we define terms is so we have an idea for what is being communicated, no individual can design a preexisting language to do what its already doing else. You don't get to manipulate terms in order to get them to agree with you, and you don't get to redefine them away from the definition, we've established the definitions quite clearly already and now you're trying to say only yours are correct, by doing that you are guaranteed you lose every argument. Nobody will take your rational seriously if this is how you communicate to them, for its irrational, childish, and pathetic. Give me reason, not trife like "academic" language, support your position with reason or shutup.
1
@KjngKhanh "I said you are using COLLOQUIAL language" All language is colloquial, that's literally what language is, this qualification is nonsense, also that statement makes no sense since it still doesn't address what I said. "there s a reason why it's a "critique of capitalism " not "criticism"." You're making up your own definitions, you are moving the goal post, stop using fallacies and I'll care to actually address you seriously.
1
 @KjngKhanh You have not presented any rational that supports your position, there is no reason I should believe your claims.
1
@KjngKhanh That's not a rational argument.
1
@KjngKhanh You know insisting that your claims are rational does not make them rational, you've presented absolutely no reason and have committed multiple fallacies instead. You also have deflected from the point at hand and have literally ignored every single argument I've made and have not once refuted any of it, to which you in the least must address before your points could even be considered rationally sound, let alone valid. And a rationally valid point for your claims requires moving the goal post to such a degree that it could not be presented as it contradicts reason inherently. You are wholly irrational, I have no need to argue further with you since you have presented yourself as containing nothing for me to argue against, there is no substance to your words and you have made yourself an elitist fool with no credibility.
1
We should kill the government monopoly on everything, this is immoral, this is evil, this is socially lethal.
1
Regulations on what we are allowed to do is an infringement indistinguishable from state sponsored murder.
1
@djy0tub3r "by "they burned them alive" do you mean the Branch Davidians intentionally setting fire to their own compound?" No, the records disagree with you there, even the FBI documents don't say the Branch Davidians did it.
1
Actually every citizen that accepts benefits from the government, local, state, or federal, is part of the government and thus not subject to rights, which is how they justify and supplant many rights in the first place. So long as you are not considered an individual, which requires independence of the state, you can and will be a servant of the state, to which has no rights and neither a right to complain.
1
There is at least two things I'm confident on Waco: 1. The claimed evidence for David molesting kids makes absolutely no sense. 2. Never once did the compound violate the law, especially gun law. Also what is he talking about "this didn't happen before"? The same type of crap caused Ruby Ridge, it followed same result of the feds murdering a bunch of innocent folks, that was 1992, Waco was in 1993, it was the FBI and ATF that did both.
1
@waynejohnson1786 The reports later turned out to be proven false by witness testimony and it ended up just being the ATF and FBI making crap up to the media, there was never any reasonable suspicious of that.
1
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "Shall not be infringed" If its not clear, all gun laws are an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Background checks, criminal lawsuits against distributors and manufacturers for the misuse of firearms, red flag laws, the prohibition of age or capability, the requirement to ascertain permission, all of them are infringements. All firearms and all weapons are to be totally unregulated and managed by the free market. The free market is more capable to prevent tragedy anyway, so long as its aware of personal responsibility instead of giving it to the fed. A bad reputation costs more then any court case, fine, or imprisonment. A company's worth is over 50% based in reputation and name and mere association with a tragedy is punishment enough from the market to destroy them. Not to mention if the free market can freely decide, individuals can make the free choice to distrust and thus not sell to specific people purely based on nothing. That is the right of business.
1
@infinitemonkey917 "It sounded like you said he is not properly telling a story." Where have I ever said this? You don't need to understand a story to tell it nor have I assumed you did, you literally made this point up out of nowhere and then tried to refute me as if I said it. That's a strawman. "Yes, you have every obligation to demonstrate your claim about this author" I have no obligation to a strawman. "It's called burden of proof." I don't think you understand what burden of proof means either, but regardless I have no burden of proof on a strawman. "You have simply made blanket statements about mistakes you claim some authors make" Where have I said the author made a mistake? I never even brought up the author making objective mistakes, my entire point from the start, which I have been quite explicit about and you have been blatantly twisting away from is that he does not comprehend his story's intent and got it wrong making claims that are incorrect about it. That's a subjectivity mistake of his at best and was completely ignored by you. You never once bothered to address what I've said, you instead keep claim that I'm saying "he is not properly telling a story." which for the last damn time I have never said. Literally quote me word for word and tell me where I say this, I will not address such foolish claims any further without evidence. "while falsely accusing me of logic fallacies." Given you literally made a strawman on me and you've redirected the point to something that I never even substantiated nor have argued in any regard with, that's also a red herring. Never once were we arguing about this and you have completely lost the point. Its an irrelevant conclusion. "All you have managed to do is repeatedly make baseless, assertions and express opinions." But you haven't demonstrated that. I'm the only one quoting you statement by statement and making direct refutations that don't just accuse you, but walk you through what I accuse you of and explain to you why I do so. You don't get to see what you want in what I write and claim I'm saying things I never said. You've yet to argue against me, you've just been deflecting. "You clearly have nothing new to add. Later penultimate boy. I'm out." Says the guy who can't quote his opposition and has yet to actually refute what I've said, how about you actually show me where I make an opinion and baseless claims? I know you don't want to since it would undermine your deflection since you weren't even bothering to argue against me with your irrational position. I've already asked you this before and I'm still waiting.
1
There is no conceptual definition of public property, no state has a right to restrict what you may do in public because there is nothing that can be publicly owned, (ownership being the only authority for which restriction of anything may be levied after the Just Law) there is no definition of public ownership nor regulation for which you can define operating in the public space. The publica (which includes the state, but also organizations and corporations as well) does not have a right to a concept of property, that is reserved exclusively for the individual, this violates the individualist recognitions found in the Constitution documents. Personally I also say there is no recognition of publica at at all, this would violate the absolutist state incorporated from the Napoleonic era, (which the United States and its Constitution predates) however in the least the publica itself must be inherently limited by de-recognition before anyone is willing to abolish its existence.
1
Honestly, I prefer to say that localism isn't the solution, its upholding of Constitutional values, the Courts are suppose to rule on the Constitutionality of any act, not its legality, the point of our courts and systems was never in regards to legality, it was Constitutionality, the Federal government has the right to intervene to uphold Constitutionality per state, it doesn't have the right to uphold any law no matter the level, and the same applies to the state. If the Federal and state governments infringe this they are suppose to be threatened and overthrown peaceably, and should it not end, then they have become invalidated by justification of profaning justice and it is the obligation of individuals to violently overthrow the state. Unfortunately we have well passed that point and there is no recovering the Constitution, it is dead, and its Americans that killed it. Those who accept welfare and social programs, including tax credits and tax breaks, have no right any longer to complain about the removal of their rights as those systems supplant the Constitution and eliminate you from the private system, you become part of the state, and the state (being the governing body) itself has no rights, if you are part of the public system, you are not an individual, you are not subject to rights and have no right to seek a claim of rights.
1