GasBandit
Staff member
Now you know how I felt in the bad old days, when 7 people responded to a post *I* made.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Our replies now are fairly succinct. It's not a JCM wall of text so much anymore
Has there ever been a time where upholding this line of thinking regardless of circumstances has resulted in a better world?
You left out a rather important sentence in your quote.
Kind of like how people are always leaving out the first part of "...money is the root of all evil," which is "The love of..."
When taken together (people who sign loans/people who originate loans), then yes, in a world where both sides of an agreement actually hold up their respective end of the bargain, it has traditionally resulted in a better world.
--Patrick
I actually would argue that the lenders of student loans are in every way holding up their side of their bargain and it has resulted in a worse world than if they hadn’t.
...And that's the point of my longer post: It's not really about who is or is not upholding their part of the agreement, it's about how the agreement itself was written to be egregiously biased toward the lender, and about how the lender was not required to explain that to the borrower. In other words, it's about how the lenders played borrowers for suckers, but then fall back on the "but you signed..." argument when the borrowers complain.
In other words, the lenders pissed in the well, and now they are complaining that the water tastes salty. If you didn't want the water to taste salty, then you shouldn't have pissed in it in the first place.
--Patrick
Didn’t have a problem with your longer post so I didn’t quote it. Had a problem with the statement that people paying back the money they owe regardless of circumstances is some kind of fundamental good. That kind of thinking has caused incredible suffering and death throughout the globe.
That isn't what he said though. The longer post that you didn't have a problem with modifies that very first sentence
It is what he said in the post I quoted.
My post says that the borrowers have a responsibility to pay it back, but it does not say, "regardless of circumstances." That is something you added.
--Patrick
Now that’s actually an argument where as whining about how I didn’t quote your long post isn’t.
However you were agreeing with TommiR who has that exact position.
*edit*
I believe my problem is that in civilized societies you get to discharge debts. You don’t pay your mortgage because it’s your “responsibility“ you pay it because if you don’t the bank takes your house because they paid for it. They don’t take your house and expect you to still keep paying them. Credit card debts, electricity bills, and cable bills if you’re willing to dodge the bill collectors your debts fall off your credit rating eventually.
All debts but student loan debts you can negotiate, ignore or settle in ways where you don’t pay the amount you agreed to. Calling paying a debt a “responsibility” is to give it a level of morality that it doesn’t deserve.
Last edited:
I wasn't whining that you didn't quote my long post. I was whining that you only quoted half of my short one.
See, I do believe that signing an agreement--any agreement, not just loans--puts upon you a certain amount of responsibility to abide by that agreement. But at the same time I believe the people drawing up these agreements have the responsibility to protect the person signing the agreement just as much as they protect themselves. They should have been prohibited from structuring things so that the borrower carries all the risk and they carry none. They should not have been allowed to trivialize the risks presented to the borrower. They should have been required to act fiduciarily.
So if someone signs an agreement that says, "You get US$5000 per month! terms may apply," and then discovers that "terms" means part of collecting their payment is that they have to allow the bank manager to hit them on the head with a hammer every time they come to collect, then while yes I still believe they have a responsibility to show up because they signed, I believe that responsibility would be obviated/preempted by the ludicrous and harmful conditions which were not fully explained at the time the agreement was signed. The responsibility would still exist, mind you, but it would be overridden.
I realize that my exact underlying rationale and logic may not adhere to the popular galactic standard, Dubyamn. But the end result is close enough to be almost indistinguishable.
--Patrick
You literally said “in my longer post” and then linked to said longer post. Which is fine you can be proud of your longer post but you weren’t whining that I only quoted half your post.
Of course it all relies on what the enforcers think is ludicrous or harmful. France didn’t think it was ludicrous to seize parts of Germany for failing to repay their war debts and pushed over a domino that started WWII and the holocaust. France didn’t think it was ludicrous to force Haiti to pay them after the Haitian revolution and it left Haiti destitute and impoverished to this day. Countries used to not believe it was ludicrous to throw people into prisons over them not paying what the country wanted them to pay wasn’t ludicrous.
I don’t think your rationale and logic isn’t standard I just believe that it has lead to terrible outcomes across the globe because it’s way too fucking standard.
Student loans are just a method the ruling class employs to keep the working class ignorant and impoverished, making them easier to rule. They are not moral or ethical or reasonable. Education was free in America until it resulted in enlightenment, a most undesirable condition for the elite to suffer. Only then did they develop a system of paying twenty thousand dollars per anum to read certain books.
I believe I am in a better position than you to know exactly what it was I was whining about.
At this point I legitimately don’t know if I’m just not adequately explaining myself, or you just aren’t getting it (or both!), but it’s looking like we’re not going to gain any more understanding of each other without boring the audience to death.
—Patrick
If you were complaining about me quoting only half your post why did you link to an entirely different post?
1. That is what happens when somebody whines instead of actually arguing a point. The conversation drags.
2.You could just not read it. You have no responsibility to read everything on this website.
3. I have no interest in a private conversation with somebody who either refuses to admit an honest mistake or who flat out lied. And yes I know not everything that is wrong on the internet is a lie.
4. It was dead before you posted.
Yes, it really was.
Basically anytime Dub gets like this it means he's bored & trolling.
figmentPez
Staff member
Disagree that what I do is trolling. I see something that I disagree with I argue against it. I’m not arguing anything that I don’t believe or can’t back up.
So the Ben Shapiro "debate me bro" approach. Unfortunate but I guess with Gas being chill these days someone has to troll this thread
You ever change your mind, you know where my PM button is.
"What do you mean you can't find them? They have to be here somewhere!"
I hope the library doesn't mysteeeeriously burn down in the near future.
--Patrick
Weren’t you the one who said the conversation was done? The fuck are you doing with this nonsense?
GasBandit
Staff member
North Carolina School Baptizes 100 Kids Without Parents’ Permission
The head of the parochial school apologized for the spontaneous event.
www.thedailybeast.com
Re: that library.
It occurred to me that not only does this show that the people calling for the books to be banned are intolerant fascists, the fact that the library doesn't even have the books they want banned shows these people have never actually gone into the library.
--Patrick
It occurred to me that not only does this show that the people calling for the books to be banned are intolerant fascists, the fact that the library doesn't even have the books they want banned shows these people have never actually gone into the library.
--Patrick
The report says that some of them have, it's just they are checking out random books they think might be "questionable" in order to complain they should be banned.
I realize many of you took the time and effort to reply to my post with well-researched and thoughtful counter-points. I am sorry that I cannot return the same consideration.
I think it’s assumed that the issue(s) being discussed are ones that you are significantly less likely to be passionate about, so this is not unexpected.
—Patrick