Perfect Infinitive Exitus

What do you care about and why do you care about it? I love rules. Clearly defined absolute rules. If they are unclear, no matter if you think you acted in accordance or not, you can be punished on a whim. Especially with individuals, who act on a whim without following the rules they enforce. Either keep one set of rules or don't and if we keep one, it should be the one, by which you're playing. Tell me, what your rules are! Clearly defined, they help you find your way around the world, for evil people like me, it's impossible to fail, as long as you are within bounds. I have every complex under the sun, swear a lot, worry too much and care too little, engage too much in nihilistic hedonism, get arrogant the moment i feel smart, am probably extremely stupid, act emotionally, continuously doubt myself, am probably delusional and wish to die when being humiliated, instead of fixing the things, that are wrong with me, whenever i try, i fail. As the most chaotic individual to exist, rules keep me from destroying others and myself. What about you?

I don't know what youre trying to imply, I don't think im arrogant enough to assume, that i know more than anyone here about anything related to guns, crime and deaths, and i don't think that "knowing more than everyone else" should be a requirement for posting in this thread; like many, im just making a projection based on my beliefs and how that might likely follow through. I think this table supports the claim i made enough to justify what i said Of course this table also shows that there are many states and cities, which do have more freedom in giving out guns than new york and that do have more gun related crime associated with them, the reason probably being an environment, in which this relatively simple principle of "death at every corner, which causes you to be shot if you wrong", doesn't work. These incidents and causes have to be determined on a case by case basis and then a projection has to be made what circumstances would've prevented this outcome; projections which don't take away preexisting civil liberties of the american people. My projection was, that, if some criminal or a group of them is acting unjustly according to law, you might as well have an opportunity to defend yourself instead of being a scared sitting duck, unable to do anything, after all, criminals don't really care about the law, why should they care about gun control? Guns will just make their victims stronger and by the time police arrives, they're gone as fast as they came; therefore equipping every citizen with the ability to defend themselves -and the ones they care about- from bad actors, is the best thing that can be done without taking away any rights. In my opinion background checks, education and sufficient training help prevent deaths caused by irresponsible behaviour too, along with equipping those individuals with basic fundamental knowledge. This would be a type of public spending i am for and i think this falls under "national security". Also eclipse, as the judge of the community, why aren't you banning me, if i do indeed not provide any value? If there is no value in me existing (according to you), then permanently getting rid of me is a net neutral, if not a benefit, because my valuelessness takes away attention from the 'real value', which would've been able to flourish if it wasn't for me existing, that is of course all assuming, that "everyone" "telling me im wrong" and every instance of your and any other individuals interaction with me has produced no value (to you specifically). I don't really mind getting banned, if it means everyone else has a better time being alive; whether or not that is true for everyone is up to you, you are the mod, it would certainly be true for me. Saying im wrong about every single post i made seems like an odd thing to say, since most of it is opinion relative to what i value, self improvement falls under the same category, i would like to debate this further but instead of doing it here, i will probably make a new thread, this one is about US Politics after all and i think i digressed too much. I think the concept of "free healthcare" for example only works decently, if the government makes regulation that prevents or disincentivizes the individual from living unhealthily, that way a lot taxpayer money can be saved on things resulting from an unhealthy lifestyle; Many european countries as well as japan, who is probably the one most successful in doing this, try and succeed with great results. I like, that there are countries that do this and do it successfully, but i think the USA is founded on principles of freedom and self discipline, which allows you to live as unhealthily as you want or not, according to your own value structure/beliefs, at the cost of nobody else but you and the things that care for you. I agree with standards for education but thats all i agree on, even then, imo there needs to be distinctions made, im less for a SAT, which is all encompassing and more for an SAT for every field, like one for each STEM field, one for each language, one for history, writing, programming, etc, so that you can value an individual based on their ability to do specific things and less with a number assigned to you based on arbitrary things, which many students often don't care for and "will not need in their life", which i personally disagree with but thats their own decision, if they want to specialize in spanish or maths but completely disregard P.E or History, which would otherwise hold them back. I think government has a decent idea of what public facilities need to be fixed, i just think they completely lack the expertise in planning, which is how a lot of taxpayer money gets lost in the system, combine that with corrupt officials, the employees slacking off and officials running their mouth and you get things like this Agriculture is fine for the most part, there is just some problems with artificial monopolies and crony capitalism; for example sugar has a huge lobby, one of the things this blobby was responsible for was funding studies that claim sugar to not be bad at all, which over the years trickled down into our education, largely responsible for misinformation, causing the epidemic of bad health; there being some good documentaries exposing the sugar lobby and the things behind it. And of course you can say, that regulations should be set in place to prevent such acts, but the regulations are often funded by the big companies and if they aren't, big companies can usually set lawyers or subsystems in place, which circumvent that regulation via a loophole, while the regular small businesses trying to work under the same thing suffer. An example is minimum wage work, big companies like amazon loved the proposal, it gave them a reason to replace their workers with machines, while small businesses struggled to get employees for their work and young people miss out on another opportunity to get some real life work experience(which is often more valuable than education), which means that they are incentivized to get into college first, to get a degree or an arbitrary qualification to warrant working for that minimum wage, which actually just gets them into debt and makes them often useless and dependant on government help, when they couldve just worked a job that didnt pay that good but they couldve lived with friends or family for a while longer, till they had enough money to finance their education or work their way up high enough to get into a position that lets them be self sustaining.

I think there is places, where taxpayer money is well invested, which is national security and national economic incentives, anything other than that can be done cheaper and better in a competetive free market; the more options, the better. Be it infrastructure construction and maintainance, education, healthcare or other, a service independant from the government does well because it relies on the service it provides to stay afloat, while the government can choose to keep the least efficient programs, regulations and workers inside, with little to no cost, cause, who is gonna fire someone who has immunity in the government? Oftentimes those programs, as cancerous as they are give voters a short term feel-good incentive to vote for the candidate who sucks up to the largest demographic the most, often removing their independance and their civil liberties under the guise of "help". I said before, that value is relative. As you value what i do and am differently than others, you have a different perception of what "improving" means; you are free to tell me what you think i shpuld improve on, i would be glad to listen as i think i am not perfect at all, like my way of expressing myself or bad habits surrounding my daily life. Do you think i have not improved? I stopped using arbitrary attributes of arbitrary people who possess arbitrary traits to express negativity aside from maybe "stupid", if that is not an improvement, i don't know what is... But im digressing I think as a moderator or "community guideline enforcer" you take that attitude and apply it consciously, those that do not improve their means of conversing according to the code of conduct (which means they don't value it) disappear by means of either being shunned or warmed and eventually even banned, discouraged from acting the way they acted before or simply choosing not to post anymore because their values are not appreciated. The same is true for the communities which value jobs and business and choose to shape their environment in such a way that it allows for the people who value those things to flourish (which is gentrification), the people who don't, disappear in the same fashion. It makes sense, right?

Im not against background checks, i think its reasonable ? i said no such thing as needing to increase public spending, im actively against that, where did i say that? are you reading what i said? I said "public spending needs to be abolished", especially if you want states with low taxes to be less federally dependant And i implied, that, if businesses move into areas with low infrastructure, their presence will incentivize that the infrastructure is being expanded on, so that their business flourishes, while bringing jobs in. Protests are fine but i think if you riot and loot stores, you better watch out for a double barrel shotgun pointing between your eyebrows. Edit: i also don't think gentrification is such a bad thing tbh. If you don't keep improving yourself, there is no value within you and if you have no value, why keep you around? Obviously value is a relative thing: in the case of businesses moving into low tax red states, the act of gentrifying is usually a thing of value in those communities, since, if it is the business and jobs that are being valued, the houses and mindsets, that go against those values, disappear as a byproduct; the means by which they disappear are an afterthought. I think "gentrification" is a special case of environmental adaption to a change, whether or not this kind of adaption is a good thing or not remains to be debated and if it is a bad thing, find solutions to replace the trend, to make sure the 'bad outcome' does not happen.

Well, if red states had higher taxes, then they would probably be less federally dependant and if public services would be almost completely abolished, there would be even less dependance on the blue states. Problem with that is red states are often lacking the infrastructure that blue states possess, which leads to no corporations being stationed there, maybe once people like elon musk move out of cali into a red state the infrastructure would expand and in todays political climate and technological expansion process, this might actually happen.

Are you assuming people just irresponsibly fire arbitrarily? There is many cities and states with the gun rights being much freer than in states like new york and these places are basically crime free, probably because everyone has a gun in their home and they don't think about doing anything stupid, when there is potential death at every corner.

At least that way blacks have the right and ability to defend themselves, if theyre being shot unjustly while with police, if blacks shoot to defend themselves from an intruder or an unjust attack, theyre probably shot dead because the cop shoots to kill, if he hears a shot.

As someone who is libertarian, i am almost fundamentally against public services aside from national security. I think it is often those public services, which prevent the individual from rising to the top. The police is there to protect people, who genuinly try and try hard and i think no matter in what circumstance you are, you can always always make it, especially in america. I also think that instead of the police getting so much money, we need more rights to hold a firearm for the individual, that way they can protect themselves and others, without having to alert the police in the flrst place, which will allow for far less use of police and therefore an automatic shrinking. I think the reason america and individual cities like hong kong became such big economic superpowers in the first place, is abolishing regulation and services, except for those, that allow people to work and work freely.

banned for being slow

Laugh using one of my faces

Consume the steed (i have a thing for poultry)

Ask if this FExLoZ will feature me as a Villain

Wouldve posted a lie if he posted about me

always tells the truth

I still wonder, why Martin Gugino was in a square filled with like 50 police officers equipped with riot gear in the first place? I would be pretty scared to be anywhere near 3 meters of them, let alone arguing with them, especially during curfew, even without the george floyd incident contextualizing all.