back to the crucible

I don’t think I said corporations are immoral, I didn’t mean to, especially since I don’t think there is such a thing as evil, so how could they be? I did rather imply that society would be better off without them, and I will continue to stand by that, although I have to admit that my knowledge of the origination of corporations is limited to something I learned in high school, and I haven’t gone back to research it since then because, well because it’s so goddamn deadly dull. I suppose if I were, as I often imagine I am, on my high horse leading humanity to a brighter future, I would be obliged to go to the wiki, but since in reality I am just half of two batshit old farts flapping their gums, I am not going to bother.

Like I said before I don’t think the republicans give a fig for states rights. They have their agenda, actually the only agenda they really have is lowering taxes on the rich, and the rest of it, like their morality crap and bogus patriotism, is just window dressing to appeal to the saps to get their votes so they can get their people in and give the plutocrats lower taxes. But anyway if states rights aligns with what they want they are all for them, if not they just don’t mention them.

I don’t see pot becoming a big issue, especially since apparently it is a big moneymaker. Cuba too, I don’t see becoming a big issue. The only people against it are a few hotheads in Florida like Rubio who are giving the issue lip service so as not to lose touch with their base, but most people just see it as a stupid cold war relic that is standing in the way of cigars and baseball players and more money, and once the embargo is gone we will wonder why was it ever there.

You are totally wrong about that underbrush thing. Weren’t you in the debate club? There are rules to this thing, which like wrestling, are only relevant when applied in academia and mean nothing in the real world. Let’s take the worst example, the presidential debates. Now, don’t laugh, this is supposedly two high minded folks laying out their plans for the country so that the high minded populace can choose who best to lead them.

Actually it is what you call an adversarial situation. It is like when the Bears play the Packers, only in this case with very timid referees. In the end one of the teams will win, but it won’t prove anything beyond just a win or a loss for either team.

Adversarial situations where I am just in it to win the argument or not, are something I don’t get into unless I am sort of loaded. I don’t want to get into an argument unless I feel there is a possibility that the guy on the other side might know more than me and I might come out learning something. Not that it happens often but I think that possibility has to always be there, or else it’s just a painful waste of time.

And no, logic isn’t just some trick to win an argument. It just isn’t, think about it.

Oh another piece of underbrush we should toss out of the gentlemanly discussion is the slippery slope. It’s just a bogus argument. People hear it so often that they think it might make sense, but if they thought about it, brought it into, yes, the crucible, they would discover it is just a bunch of bullshit.