The Outrage Thread

[Irving Cowboy]

Well, when you have no argument, tapping out without addressing anything I said is certainly one tact.

Not effective, though, because you are still totally and unarguably wrong.

Yep, ok.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

You just can’t say that 300,000 people have some sort of moral right of first refusal to the entire North American continent, most of which they could not be said to be “owning” or even “occupying” under any definition of the word at the time.

You have any idea how much empty, unused, unoccupied space there is in this country (and Canada!!!) with only 300k people on it? It’s functionally empty. Utterly and completely empty.

We are talking like 3-6 football fields full of people were on the continent north of Mexico when the colonies were established.

In one fell swoop, you quite effectively killed your own argument. You say that much of the US was "empty land", which of course is true, but for you to say the Indians weren't fucked out of the .0001% of the land that they occupied for thousands of years is preposturous. Europeans could have taken over just about anywhere else, but they not only took what was empty, but made sure they cleared out the rest of the land, eventually "letting" Native Americans live on reservations... IF they wanted to live as Native Americans.

If you were living back then and 99% of your cabin was empty, wouldn't you think that you got fucked if a bunch of Native Americans came and moved in since you weren't using every square inch?

 

[Cotton]

 

[Smitty]

In one fell swoop, you quite effectively killed your own argument.

Only to a dumbass who doesn't understand basic reason.

You say that much of the US was "empty land", which of course is true, but for you to say the Indians weren't fucked out of the .0001% of the land that they occupied for thousands of years is preposturous.

As hard as it is to argue against such deeply thought out colloquialisms as "fucked out of," my point remains. You repeating that they were "fucked," doesn't make it so.

I'm saying the general movement of Americans to the West which ultimately deprived the Native Americans of their ancestral lands was not wrongful per se. Obviously any instance of lying, breaking a treaty, etc, which certainly did happen on occasion, was wrong. But whether the Americans broke treaties or just spread west organically, there was never any other outcome that was going to occur besides the Native American population being ultimately displaced. When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, that was the end for Native American society on the North American continent. The choices at that point are assimilation or reservations. The whites were having more babies and moving in (the same thing is going to happen to white people in this country eventually, by the way, though, as I expound on later, we now live in a society of LAWS).

Once the British Americans began to spread and populate, the overtaking of that land from Natives was inevitable. It's like if one population dies off and so another moves in. That's essentially what happened. There were no Natives left to form anything that could be defined as a coherent nation.

Europeans could have taken over just about anywhere else

Huh? There were no landmasses (ie continents) on earth that were completely devoid of any humans at the time of Columbus's voyage to America.

As for the "least populated," areas they could have taken over, the Americas certainly counts as it's population per square mile was minimal once disease unintentionally ravished the population.

but they not only took what was empty, but made sure they cleared out the rest of the land, eventually "letting" Native Americans live on reservations... IF they wanted to live as Native Americans.

Yeah, again, that's not fucking them. Way over 90% of the Native population died. Their time as rulers of the land was over. They didn't have the numbers to meaningfully occupy the land.

No one has a moral claim to land that they visit or pass through once every decade in the absence of a recorded, legal ownership system.

If you were living back then and 99% of your cabin was empty, wouldn't you think that you got fucked if a bunch of Native Americans came and moved in since you weren't using every square inch?

Your scenario isn't applicable. Can I see all four walls of my cabin from one spot, and walk around the cabin less than a day? Am I storing stuff in each corner of my cabin? Does each part of the cabin have a function that is necessary to the basic needs of life, like, a kitchen, a bathroom, a bedroom? Do I have a recorded deed to my cabin? Then it's mine and I have the right to keep people out. My labor made the cabin and I need the space of the cabin to reasonably provide the things myself and my family need to live. If my cabin transcends the curvature of the earth, then no I wouldn't be fucked if they moved in.

When you have a legal system where you have rights, especially PROPERTY RIGHTS, those rights exist and are enumerated specifically to create fairness and morality and order and justice. The enumeration of the rights, the codifying of law, puts everyone on notice as to what the rights are, and that's WHY everyone has to play by the rules, because changing the rules is unfair. If I live my life under those rules, I'm entitled to use the rules to my advantage and I'm entitled to their protection. If I acquire property under the rules, no matter whether I'm using the property or not, I'm entitled to protection of that property, because it's the rules.

There are also natural rights, ie, God given rights if you believe such a thing, that don't come from man, so I'm not claiming that because the Native Americans didn't have a legal system that they were fair game to be raped, murdered, tortured, etc, but when it comes to PROPERTY OWNERSHIP or even the division of land between peoples, if there is no such legal system then the concept of "stealing," becomes way more gray and open to the realities of nature as opposed to the reality of keeping order.

And in a scenario where I, Smitty, living by myself on a property the size of Rhode Island, and claiming it was all mine, and trying to exclude everyone else because a thousand years ago my ancestors were all spread out on it, but without any documents or legal rights recognizing my ownership of such............. no, it is not fair that I have a claim to keep everyone else out, and no, it is not wrongful that other people come settle on "my" land. It's called Adverse Possession and it's quite settled in the British/American system of law. The concept is that if you aren't using a space often enough to even notice someone squatting on it, you lose the moral right to the property.

So if I am not physically capable of occupying, improving, or even VISITING my entire acreage over the course of my life if I'm walking on foot, I can't really claim it.

Now, if a property legal system existed, and my parents had PURCHASED the land, and willed it to me, and this was documented for all to see, and the property could be sold if I chose, or traded, or whatnot, then yes it would be fair because that's the only way to prove who has what. For people who have less, they have rights to protect too, but the rules have to be the same for people who have more. Rich and poor people need to be protected under the same laws. So if I have more than I can use, but the rules allow it, then those are the rules and it's wrongful to deprive me of it.

But in the absence of a legal system, no, I have no moral right to that land that I can't even lay eyes on.

This is the scenario that the Natives were facing circa 1700-1800. There were not enough of them to meaningfully occupy the space. But they roamed across it over decades of their lives because they were borderline nomadic. Because of the traveling, they inevitably encountered white Americans who they conflicted with, who were settling down and putting up fences in empty land that wasn't traversed by Natives, except maybe on a "yearly" basis or even less frequently.

Because the Natives didn't understand the settler's ways, conflict was inevitable. There had to be a winner and a loser and the Native way of living was inferior to the Settlers way of living in an 19th century society dominated by increasing technology and the need for rules. I say "inferior," not placing a judgment call on all the hippies who want to live at peace with nature, etc, but in a time when humanity, even the white settlers, essentially were subject to survival of the fittest, the white settler way was the fittest for the time and so of course it won.

It's not "fucked." The Native time was over. They died out almost entirely, as a percentage, through no fault of the white Americans. As a result they had no military power or moral argument to continue their extraordinarily loose control of the land.

If you are trying to argue, like, the Trail of Tears was too mean, ok, but that's a different argument than "we stole their land."

 

[Smitty]

It's like Clear and Present Danger up in this bitch.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Wait, so you pay different prices in real time?

Yeah good luck with that.

Yeah, I know this is hard to believe but this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart.

The pricing of fast food has become absurd. It's not just Wendy's, it's all of them.

I love fast food, but why in the fuck would I pay the prices of a real restaurant for fast fucking food?

 

[Smitty]

Yeah, I know this is hard to believe but this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart.

The pricing of fast food has become absurd. It's not just Wendy's, it's all of them.

I love fast food, but why in the fuck would I pay the prices of a real restaurant for fast fucking food?

It's because the low costs that made fast food affordable to make are no longer low.

You need a building; real estate has shot up.

You need labor; labor has shot up.

When the building costs $100 and the food costs either $10 or $50 to produce for fast food versus restaurant, that's a sizeable percentage difference that allows the cost of sale to be less.

When the building costs $1000 and the food costs either $100 or $150 to produce, that's a much smaller difference.

I'm sure it's greed too, but yeah, the dollar menu phenomenon kept fast food alive for me throughout college and grad school and the early years of my career, is now dead. I could go to McDonalds and eat a pretty sizeable quantity of food for $4.

It's no less than $10 for the same food now.

Of course fucking everything is a lot. Jersey Mikes is $20 for a footlong. Try going to a sit down restaurant with a family of four and spending less than $70 after tip. It's not possible. Still, I go to McDonalds or Wendys with a family and it's $45 or $50.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Yeah, I know this is hard to believe but this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart.

The pricing of fast food has become absurd. It's not just Wendy's, it's all of them.

I love fast food, but why in the fuck would I pay the prices of a real restaurant for fast fucking food?

I guess they are banking on people caring a lot about convenience. But it's becoming really easy to order to go from a restaurant so I think they are miscalculating.

 

[Genghis Khan]

But it's becoming really easy to order to go from a restaurant so I think they are miscalculating.

Exactly right.

 

[Genghis Khan]

It's because the low costs that made fast food affordable to make are no longer low.

You need a building; real estate has shot up.

You need labor; labor has shot up.

When the building costs $100 and the food costs either $10 or $50 to produce for fast food versus restaurant, that's a sizeable percentage difference that allows the cost of sale to be less.

When the building costs $1000 and the food costs either $100 or $150 to produce, that's a much smaller difference.

I'm sure it's greed too, but yeah, the dollar menu phenomenon kept fast food alive for me throughout college and grad school and the early years of my career, is now dead. I could go to McDonalds and eat a pretty sizeable quantity of food for $4.

It's no less than $10 for the same food now.

Of course fucking everything is a lot. Jersey Mikes is $20 for a footlong. Try going to a sit down restaurant with a family of four and spending less than $70 after tip. It's not possible. Still, I go to McDonalds or Wendys with a family and it's $45 or $50.

Part of what was supposed to make fast food cheaper is turnover. They process way more customers than a normal restaurant because the food service is so fast. So they make money not from markup but from volume. You are sacrificing quality for convenience as a customer but part of what brought people in wasn't just the quick service but also the price.

I don't think most people are happy to sacrifice both quality and price just for quick service.

 

[Genghis Khan]

To be clear by the way, yes the shitty economy (especially inflation) is fucking the fast food industry just like it is everything else. That's definitely part of it.

 

[1bigfan13]

Jesus fucking Christ, this was on the Oscars last night. I just don't understand this world anymore.

John Cena is that one guy who loves getting butt ass naked.

Dude has a handful of movies where he's showing his ass.

 

[Genghis Khan]

The Oscars happened?

 

[1bigfan13]

Yeah, I know this is hard to believe but this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart.

The pricing of fast food has become absurd. It's not just Wendy's, it's all of them.

I love fast food, but why in the fuck would I pay the prices of a real restaurant for fast fucking food?

Wendy's quickly tried to backtrack after they received a huge negative response. Their CEO claimed that he was talking about digital menu boards with dynamic prices to offer discounts during slow periods.

I've been around long enough to know a corporation con job when I see it. What will likely happen is they'll increase prices across the board, then during those non-peak hours they'll lower them to the "normal" rates to make it look like a sale.

Winn Dixie used to do something similar with ribs, burgers, and such when summer holidays rolled around. During any other time of the year I'd go in there and could get a slab of ribs for $10 but whenever a holiday approached that people usually BBQ'd during, they'd always throw sale signs on the meat but jack up the regular price. Ribs would be labeled buy 1 get 1 free, but instead of the normal $10 they'd be labeled $19 each.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I've been around long enough to know a corporation con job when I see it. What will likely happen is they'll increase prices across the board, then during those non-peak hours they'll lower them to the "normal" rates to make it look like a sale.

Yep.

 

[Cotton]

Winn Dixie

There's a name I haven't heard in a while.

 

[1bigfan13]

There's a name I haven't heard in a while.

I was living in Florida at the time.

Winn Dixie and Publix dominate the Florida grocery landscape down there.

 

[Cotton]

I was living in Florida at the time.

Winn Dixie and Publix dominate the Florida grocery landscape down there.

We used to have Winn Dixie and Piggly Wiggly here, but I haven't seen either in a long time.

 

[Cotton]

But, we do have Toot'n Totum, which is about as redneck of a name as you can get.

 

[1bigfan13]

We used to have Winn Dixie and Piggly Wiggly here, but I haven't seen either in a long time.

Winn Dixies are still in cities. I think Piggly Wiggly stores are only in rural areas.