Jaime Wolf

If you are seeing this message, it means you have, for good or ill, visited my profile. Should you like to know more, please watch below. youtube.com/watch?v=SjP0Y-…

@wet_church @AralezNeverBeen @Aella_Girl To share something is not to collectively own. That 2 people pretend to collectively own something does not mean they actually do. Let's say one person wants to burn the house down and the other person wants to sell it, what happens to the house?

@ABujnicki @AralezNeverBeen @Aella_Girl this is asinine. people get married and own houses together literally every day. sharing does not break the laws of physics

Alright I tested this on Glosso, a small social media platform made up of adults with permanent account bans on the line (instead of death). Almost a thousand people voted. And the result was.... Exactly the same percentages as this poll

@AralezNeverBeen @wet_church @Aella_Girl Let me state it more clearly then. Collective property is impossible as 2 people cannot logically own the same thing at the same time, there can only be 1 director of a thing. Collectivism in general is impossible as a "collective" does not actually exist.

@ABujnicki @wet_church @Aella_Girl No, you have not stated reasons. You've typed sentences.

@AralezNeverBeen @wet_church @Aella_Girl I have stated several reasons as to to why it is impossible, in fact i even tried to elucidate my point with an example which you didnt engage with. You havent responded to any of my arguments except to say that they are "retarded"?

@ABujnicki @wet_church @Aella_Girl My claim is that it's retarded to say "collectivism is logically impossible" and you fail to argue every additional point you try to make for your case.

@AralezNeverBeen @wet_church @Aella_Girl Your claim is that a concept in my mind can lay claim to things in reality. I take this to mean you believe your mind sends spirits out into the world to homestead things. I want you to take a picture of this ghost of thought you believe exists

@ABujnicki @wet_church @Aella_Girl You are having trouble understanding that an army is a collective? Or that an army can lay collective claim, thereby collectively owning, territory, equipment? (in which case, you;re responding to the wrong post, which is a new low).

@wet_church @AralezNeverBeen @Aella_Girl Santa exists as a concept in multiple minds. Are you saying Santa can buy a house?

@ABujnicki @AralezNeverBeen @Aella_Girl concepts that exist in multiple minds exist in reality - not in like a woo primacy of consciousness way, in a 'how people model the world influences their physical actions' way. co-ops with equal ownership stake own property all the time

@AralezNeverBeen @wet_church @Aella_Girl Can you take a picture of a concept in your mind buying something? Like can you show me a literal army buying something? Not a person in the army, but the concept of an army.

@ABujnicki @wet_church @Aella_Girl It's a concept of the mind you can apply to external realities, you absolute nitwit. Families, co-workers, friends, gangs, armies, nations. These are external, physical realities.

@wet_church @AralezNeverBeen @Aella_Girl I agree a collective is a concept in the mind used to describe a group of individuals. Can you describe how a concept in my mind might go out and homestead property?

@ABujnicki @AralezNeverBeen @Aella_Girl a collective is just a group of people with shared outcomes cooperating. you and your coworkers agreeing to get lunch delivered from the same place have come to a collective decision and you have a collective one-hour claim to the conference room you reserved to eat in together

@AralezNeverBeen @wet_church @Aella_Girl This screenshot, and even your response, is litterally in agreement with my position? Can you explain to me how one has any sort of collectivism with 100% private property? Can you explain to me how a collective, something which does not exist, can do anything?

@ABujnicki @wet_church @Aella_Girl "I am specifically talking about collective property" 1: You were not 2: Any collective can make a collective claim on a property (family, team, tribe). Don't add dishonesty to your display of stupidity.

@AralezNeverBeen @wet_church @Aella_Girl Im not sure what "coordinate collectively" means to you, whether that means I trade my stuff with you, whether we own the same stuff, or something else. I am specifically talking about collective property, which is impossible. Not undesirable, litterally impossible.

@ABujnicki @wet_church @Aella_Girl It is logically possible to coordinate along collectivist lines, you imbecile. "Undesirable"=/= "logically impossible" "Not possible in practice" =/= "Logically impossible"

@AralezNeverBeen @wet_church @Aella_Girl If it is logically possible then why not answer the question and go down the flow? A declaration of "its possible!" doesnt seem enough. The alternative standard of value to life is death, death is not a viable standard of value. Life and death are not subjective state of being.

@ABujnicki @wet_church @Aella_Girl It is logically possible. You do not know what "logically possible"means, just as you clearly don't understand when "subjective" applies to morality (all very basic terms).

@AralezNeverBeen @wet_church @Aella_Girl Your claim is that collectivism is logically possible, and I am proving to you why it is not. I seem to have a grasp of the topic, otherwise why would I bring it up? I hold life as the standard of value, the latecomer ethic of collectivism is incompatible with life, thus evil.

@ABujnicki @wet_church @Aella_Girl I'm pointing out you're using terms without understanding where they apply, you nitwit.

@stolperson @Aella_Girl Im just repeating back to you what you said. No analysis required

@ABujnicki @Aella_Girl Seems like an emotional response. Not very rational, huh?

@stolperson @Aella_Girl More confirmation that blue is a death cult

@ABujnicki @Aella_Girl Its fully rational if you believe the fate of being a red pusher post-red victory is an equally bad outcome to death.

@jonburkeUK You're asking the British government to do something cheaply. This isnt an issue of feasibility

‘Cheap nuclear’ is the energy of the future. And it always will be…

@AralezNeverBeen @wet_church @Aella_Girl Lets say there is a stick, can you give an example of how we may both own this stick simultaneously?

@ABujnicki @wet_church @Aella_Girl "Collectivism is not only evil" that's an actual subjective moral claim. "Rationally impossible" do you mean "logically impossible"? (it's not)

@HerbertsGhost @Aella_Girl That you have not yet killed yourself in endless attempts to satisfy the needs of others proves you do not believe what you write.

@ABujnicki @Aella_Girl Yea that's some psycho, bacteria level thinking. Human life is only possible with selflessness, and that's a fact. Look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're a person or if you're a brainstem.

@JohnQPublic100 @Ashrubel @Aella_Girl It is the other way around. I believe humanity to be a good thing, which is why it ought flourish. You believe humanity is unworthy of existence, which is why everyone ought kill themselves for the greater good. No man, no problem, right?

@ABujnicki @Ashrubel @Aella_Girl Yeah, you're fucking evil, dude.

@JohnQPublic100 @Ashrubel @Aella_Girl Yes, it is entirely rational to say that I should not risk death to save someone who willed themselves into a suicidal situation. As an individual, I am under no moral obligation to be selfless, and in fact I am obligated to be selfish.

@ABujnicki @Ashrubel @Aella_Girl Game theory: it's easier to convince 50% of people to press blue than 100% of people to press red. Your "rational" response is "fuck those people, they are irrational therefore their lives have no worth." Really though it's just "if I press red I'm safe. Screw them."

@HerbertsGhost @Aella_Girl Its not an opinion. Selflessness is incompatible with life fundamentally.

@ABujnicki @Aella_Girl I'm sorry, can't you read the meme? Clearly the general understanding is otherwise. YOU can have your opinion and you are wrong.

@hwangchewwwn @Aella_Girl My loved ones dont die as they rationally choose red. That you are still alive means you have not engaged in total self-sacrifice, so by your own definition you are also a murderer. You are either Hitler incarnate who wants to destroy humanity, confused, or a fool.

@ABujnicki @Aella_Girl 1) Nice way to twist my argument, I said you derive utility from your loved ones not dying. If you disagree with this statement there is nothing more for me to tell you. 2) I actually do derive utility from dying if it means I avoid the counterfactual of being a murderer.