[Victoribus Spolia]

@ingliz,

Sounds like a good time.

[Potemkin]

I smoked Capstan Full Strength ((3.39 mg nicotine/cigarette) in my younger days. Well suited to a pint of Theakston's Old Peculiar tapped straight from the barrel (wood, of course) propped on a trestle in the corner of the pub.

I meant in terms of flavour, not nicotine strength. Virginia tobaccos tend to be strong in nicotine but light and subtle in flavour. English mixtures contain Latakia tobacco, which is strong and smoky in flavour, but weak-ass in terms of nicotine content.

Unfortunately, Theakston's brewery as was is no more, and Capstan Full Strength was banned by Act of Parliament in 2004.

It's as though the fucking Puritans are back in power. Maybe VS is right and we need another Restoration....

[Negotiator]

I think its pretty funny if people think that monarchy would solve any problems.

The issue is that democracy isnt working. Its not that monarchy would give any improvement over the current situation. The only advantage I can see it that monarchy would be more honest.

Besides, given the situation with Corbyn in UK, I would have to say democracy works better in UK right now than in most european countries.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Maybe VS is right and we need another Restoration.

Glad your catching on....

I think its pretty funny if people think that monarchy would solve any problems.

The issue is that democracy isnt working. Its not that monarchy would give any improvement over the current situation. The only advantage I can see it that monarchy would be more honest.

Democracy is not working because of the expansion of power implicit in mob rule and demographic outcomes. Once such reaches a terminal mass, monarchy, or an imperial variety of such, will become a practical necessity and historical inevitability. Indeed, it will be out of the inefficiencies of democratic systems, the powers they have created, and socio-economic crisis, that a strong-man figure will arise to restore order to the west. Rome gives a great lesson on this.

[Pants-of-dog]

Democracy is not working because of the expansion of power implicit in mob rule and demographic outcomes.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

No. I did not make the original claim, the person I addressed did, I just agreed with them without asking for further evidence....you may ask them if you are really curious....

[Pants-of-dog]

Your inability to support your claims is noted.

You usually post a meme when you run out of arguments.

By the way, I looked up regulations for sill framing, and could not find any. A single complaint (about inspections and not about regulations) by a single contractor is not really evidence for onerous regulations.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Your inability to support your claims is noted.

Sure. Okay. Please Note It, Be Sure To Keep Filed Under: "I" for "I don't give a fuck."

You usually post a meme when you run out of arguments.

Ewwww. That is a good idea. Love it.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

By the way, I looked up regulations for sill framing, and could not find any. A single complaint (about inspections and not about regulations) by a single contractor is not really evidence for onerous regulations.

Yeah, like I said, you dishonestly assumed and admitted personal experience into a conversation and then change criteria to require an onerous amount of code research that you gamble that I don't have time to do so you can tout the claim: "you can't support your claims." It is a troll technique as old as time and I told you that i'm not playing that game, and you are only bringing it back because you have been effectively ignored for several posts and are butt-hurt over the ass-kicking i have been giving you on the contraception thread.

Likewise, nobody cares, we've moved on, I don't trust your bias in research, and I don't have time to look up codes on my entire life's worth of contracting experience with every individual municipal regulator I encountered in between appointments at work, which is the only time I can post of PoFo, unlike you, the stay-at-home daddy that averages 8+ posts per day and has time to look up sill regulations for the United States and Canada, I don't have time for that shit.

If I took you serious, I wouldn't have stopped engaging your nonsense on this thread to talk about alcohol and tobacco with @Potemkin,

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure. Okay. Please Note It, Be Sure To Keep Filed Under: "I" for "I don't give a fuck."

Cool. So why should anyone believe that democracy is going to crumble under the weight of its won expansion, if there is no evidence?

Ewwww. That is a good idea. Love it.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

This thing where you assume your ideological opponent has a certain emotional reaction is also something you do when you have no argument.

Yeah, like I said, you dishonestly assumed and admitted personal experience into a conversation

Actually, I pointed out that anecdotal experience is not evidence, and we even agreed about this when you were asking me about my personal experience.

Gkad we could clarify that.

and then change criteria to require an onerous amount of code research that you gamble that I don't have time to do so you can tout the claim: "you can't support your claims." It is a troll technique as old as time and I told you that i'm not playing that game, and you are only bringing it back because you have been effectively ignored for several posts and are butt-hurt over the ass-kicking i have been giving you on the contraception thread.

Likewise, nobody cares, we've moved on, I don't trust your bias in research, and I don't have time to look up codes on my entire life's worth of contracting experience with every individual municipal regulator I encountered in between appointments at work, which is the only time I can post of PoFo, unlike you, the stay-at-home daddy that averages 8+ posts per day and has time to look up sill regulations for the United States and Canada, I don't have time for that shit.

If I took you serious, I wouldn't have stopped engaging your nonsense on this thread to talk about alcohol and tobacco with @Potemkin,

You obviously have time to tell me much you supposedly do not care, and to post anecdotes about how you supposedly have worked for years in an industry but cannot actually find the regulations that you supposedly work with on a daily basis.

Anyway, there are regulations for sill plates, whcih makes sense as these are structural.

And you seem to be assuming that regulations are caused by democracy, instead of as a reaction to capitalism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Cool. So why should anyone believe that democracy is going to crumble under the weight of its won expansion, if there is no evidence

I dunno, you could always start with Roman History: Start with the Gracchi and read through Octavian.

nd to post anecdotes about how you supposedly have worked for years in an industry but cannot actually find the regulations that you supposedly work with on a daily basis

Correct, between appointments and orders I don't have time to look up municipal regulations in counties and states I no longer live-in and doing so to satisfy you makes it all the less appealing to do so.

And you seem to be assuming that regulations are caused by democracy, instead of as a reaction to capitalism.

Ah yes, your Marxist bias is showing. No wonder you interpreted annoying and intrusive codes so favorably.

[Pants-of-dog]

I dunno, you could always start with Roman History: Start with the Gracchi and read through Octavian.

Please quote the relevant text(s). Thank you.

Correct, between appointments and orders I don't have time to look up municipal regulations in counties and states I no longer live-in and doing so to satisfy you makes it all the less appealing to do so.

Your feelings are not relevant.

As I said, I searched for these regulations and did not find any. I even looked at the regulations for the municipality mentioned in that forum. They also did not have any regulations about sills.

Let us assume they exist, and I am simply unable to find them.

This then amounts to a single regulation and one contractor who dislikes it. Not exactly onerous, annoying, or intrusive.

Ah yes, your Marxist bias is showing. No wonder you interpreted annoying and intrusive codes so favorably.

I never tried to hide my Marxism.

Since regulations are set up to protect the consumer from non-apparent defects in goods and services, it would make sense to assume that they exist as a reaction to people trying to pass off defected goods to consumers.

Why would sellers do that? Because they can then sell a good or service at top price when that good or seevice is actually worth less. This brings more profit to the seller. Profit is the goal of capitalism.

Sure seems like regulations are set up as a reaction to capitalism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Please quote the relevant text(s). Thank you.

No, but I will describe to you what happened in three sentences:

The Senate became corrupt, inefficient, and began oppressing the people during a time when it also promoted immigration and slavery to provide cheap labor to these same elites at the expense of poorer native Romans and when traditional values and religion was supplanted by immorality and irreligion stemming greatly from the avant garde lifestyles of the elites. The gracchi brothers won populist elections to reform the system by advocating for traditional roman virtues and capping the land holdings (which would have hurt the aristocrats that ran the senate) so as to restore the middle-class Roman farmer, but for this the Senate had them murdered creating even greater hatred for the representative government by the people. Julius Caesar was popular because of the Gallic wars and ended up making himself dictator for life against the Senate, but was murdered and his heir, Octavian, later eliminated the senate and established imperial rule for the rest of Roman History which also attempted to re-institute traditional morality and religion.

Here is Augustus Caesar (Octavian)'s reforms:

Augustus is well known for being the first Emperor of Rome, but even more than that, for being a self-proclaimed “Restorer of the Republic.” He believed in ancestral values such as monogamy, chastity, and piety (virtue). Thus, he introduced a number of moral and political reforms in order to improve Roman society and formulate a new Roman government and lifestyle. The basis of each of these reforms was to revive traditional Roman religion in the state....

https://www.ancient.eu/article/116/augu ... l-reforms/

Also, why the Senate fell:

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/fall_of_republic.htm

Let us assume they exist, and I am simply unable to find them.

This then amounts to a single regulation and one contractor who dislikes it. Not exactly onerous, annoying, or intrusive.....Sure seems like regulations are set up as a reaction to capitalism.

Actually, there were several contractors on that forum talking about the same thing, plus me, and I doubt we are the only ones as many contractors are not exactly, "computer-forum-guys." A little bit of honesty goes a long way in this, but that is fine. We both gave anecdotal evidence from our contracting experience, I am free to dismiss yours and you are free to dismiss mine. If you were to poll contractors on whether most regulations were an unnecessary wast-of-time, I would bet my paycheck most would say that they were. You can claim otherwise, all you want, but most run-of-the-mill contractors are insanely ideological Marxists either who lets their presuppositions cloud their judgment of reality and real-life conditions.

Likewise, I never said that reactions to the market did not bring about regulations; however, you are naive to assume that such are not also exploitative and often unnecessary. The price of goods increases due to regulations as does the ensuing economic burden on the consumer because of regulations. Thus, the mobility and prosperity of the lower classes is damaged as they cannot afford to build their own homes as their fathers had done without increasing their debt-slavery to banks and credit-cards.

Likewise, because of Marxist thought, applied through democracy, we have regulations imposed upon the market (whether well-intention-ed or not) that further enrich one class against another.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, but I will describe to you what happened in three sentences:

The Senate became corrupt, inefficient, and began oppressing the people during a time when it also promoted immigration and slavery to provide cheap labor to these same elites at the expense of poorer native Romans and when traditional values and religion was supplanted by immorality and irreligion stemming greatly from the avant garde lifestyles of the elites. The gracchi brothers won populist elections to reform the system by advocating for traditional roman virtues and capping the land holdings (which would have hurt the aristocrats that ran the senate) so as to restore the middle-class Roman farmer, but for this the Senate had them murdered creating even greater hatred for the representative government by the people. Julius Caesar was popular because of the Gallic wars and ended up making himself dictator for life against the Senate, but was murdered and his heir, Octavian, later eliminated the senate and established imperial rule for the rest of Roman History which also attempted to re-institute traditional morality and religion.

Here is Augustus Caesar (Octavian)'s reforms:

https://www.ancient.eu/article/116/augu ... l-reforms/

Also, why the Senate fell:

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/fall_of_republic.htm

None of this supports a claim that democracies are inherently over-reaching to the point of collapse.

Actually, there were several contractors on that forum talking about the same thing, plus me, and I doubt we are the only ones as many contractors are not exactly, "computer-forum-guys." A little bit of honesty goes a long way in this, but that is fine. We both gave anecdotal evidence from our contracting experience, I am free to dismiss yours and you are free to dismiss mine. If you were to poll contractors on whether most regulations were an unnecessary wast-of-time, I would bet my paycheck most would say that they were. You can claim otherwise, all you want, but most run-of-the-mill contractors are insanely ideological Marxists either who lets their presuppositions cloud their judgment of reality and real-life conditions.

No, there was a single contractor who talked about inspectors dinging him for single framed sills. None discussed regulations.

But if all you have is a belief that contractors share your feelings, then you have no argument.

If you want an anecdote, I once saved a contractor hundreds of dollars because the designs and the client wanted a mirror at a certain height but the sub installed it according to wheelchair accessibility regulations. I showed the contractor the regulation, and he sent it to the client. Deficiency solved.

Likewise, I never said that reactions to the market did not bring about regulations; however, you are naive to assume that such are not also exploitative and often unnecessary. The price of goods increases due to regulations as does the ensuing economic burden on the consumer because of regulations. Thus, the mobility and prosperity of the lower classes is damaged as they cannot afford to build their own homes as their fathers had done without increasing their debt-slavery to banks and credit-cards.

Please provide evidence for these claims. Thank you.

Likewise, because of Marxist thought, applied through democracy, we have regulations imposed upon the market (whether well-intention-ed or not) that further enrich one class against another.

Please 0rovide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

[Victoribus Spolia]

None of this supports a claim that democracies are inherently over-reaching to the point of collapse.

Yes it does.

Please provide evidence for these claims. Thank you.

Please 0rovide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

No.

Not playing your troll-games.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes it does.

No, because you are assuming your conclusion. The reason things went down the drain back then may have been something other than democracy.

No.

Not playing your troll-games.

Asking for evidence is now trolling?

Anyway, you have still not presented a single example of onerous regulation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No, because you are assuming your conclusion.

No, I am supporting it with historical evidence. There is a difference. You said I made a claim (which I denied btw), and then you asked me to support, which this did.

If you want me to EXPLAIN how the fall of the Senate was likely inherent rather than periphery, I can do so, if you ask nicely.

Asking for evidence is now trolling?

Its pretty well common-knowledge the manner in which you do this is not based on honest discourse, likewise, you are not consistent with this. As I demonstrated in other threads, when you are asked to provide evidence for claims, you outright refuse.

You only ask for evidence, not out of a legitimate desire of evidence, but to bog down the conversation and you wager that your opponent does not have time to research, cite, quote, and post source material for every discrete claim that is made in a paragraph or general argument.

If you did desire real discussion of evidence, you would ask for it in a different manner such as: "why is it you believe that democracies create onerious and intrusive regulation?" or "On what basis would you argue that intrusive regulations originate from democratic overreach and not from a mere reaction to unfettered capitalism?"

That is not what you are looking for, because when a general explanation is given, even if quoting source material, you respond with simple one-liners like: "That is not evidence." or "So not evidence, great." etc., etc., usually with little or not interaction with the posted material.

This can be observed in almost all of your conversations and it is common knowledge on PoFo, even among your fellow leftists. You are known as a troll and not as a serious and interactive poster.

I can only speculate as to the reason for your doing so, but it seems that by using a purely defensive/negative approach via short questions, you are avoiding any positive arguments of your own, mainly because you lack the sufficient education and knowledge to do so. Indeed, you rarely make any arguments of your own, and only make odd demands for evidence for every succinct point. Such a method would make you look more intelligent only if you did not resort to it as much as you do, and you do it the most, when you are clearly irritated or have been getting thoroughly walloped in a thread. Which is telling in itself.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, I am supporting it with historical evidence. There is a difference. You said I made a claim (which I denied btw), and then you asked me to support, which this did.

If you want me to EXPLAIN how the fall of the Senate was likely inherent rather than periphery, I can do so, if you ask nicely.

You have not presented evidence that the problems of the roman Empire were caused by democratic overreaching.

Its pretty well common-knowledge the manner in which you do this is not based on honest discourse, likewise, you are not consistent with this. As I demonstrated in other threads, when you are asked to provide evidence for claims, you outright refuse.

You only ask for evidence, not out of a legitimate desire of evidence, but to bog down the conversation and you wager that your opponent does not have time to research, cite, quote, and post source material for every discrete claim that is made in a paragraph or general argument.

If you did desire real discussion of evidence, you would ask for it in a different manner such as: "why is it you believe that democracies create onerious and intrusive regulation?" or "On what basis would you argue that intrusive regulations originate from democratic overreach and not from a mere reaction to unfettered capitalism?"

That is not what you are looking for, because when a general explanation is given, even if quoting source material, you respond with simple one-liners like: "That is not evidence." or "So not evidence, great." etc., etc., usually with little or not interaction with the posted material.

This can be observed in almost all of your conversations and it is common knowledge on PoFo, even among your fellow leftists. You are known as a troll and not as a serious and interactive poster.

I can only speculate as to the reason for your doing so, but it seems that by using a purely defensive/negative approach via short questions, you are avoiding any positive arguments of your own, mainly because you lack the sufficient education and knowledge to do so. Indeed, you rarely make any arguments of your own, and only make odd demands for evidence for every succinct point. Such a method would make you look more intelligent only if you did not resort to it as much as you do, and you do it the most, when you are clearly irritated or have been getting thoroughly walloped in a thread. Which is telling in itself.

Your feelings about me and my posting style are not relevant.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You have not presented evidence that the problems of the roman Empire were caused by democratic overreaching.

I never claimed overreaching, so you are correct. I claimed that democratic expansion of power and corruption leads to its own demise and the rise of "strong-men."

Your feelings about me and my posting style are not relevant.

They are not feelings, they are a psychological analysis of your posting style based on evidence from your posts. You are a troll when you demand evidence, not an intellectual. There is a difference.

[Pants-of-dog]

I never claimed overreaching, so you are correct. I claimed that democratic expansion of power and corruption leads to its own demise and the rise of "strong-men."

Too bad your example does not actually show that expansion of power and corruption were caused by democracy. Correlation is not causation, even if we take a single example as showing a correlation, which it does not.

They are not feelings, they are a psychological analysis of your posting style based on evidence from your posts. You are a troll when you demand evidence, not an intellectual. There is a difference.

Please provide evidence that regulations increase the price for consumers, and that this is significant enough to afrect the mobility and prosperity of the lower classes.

Also provide evidence that regulations are imposed because of Marxist thought and enrich one class over another.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Too bad your example does not actually show that expansion of power and corruption were caused by democracy. Correlation is not causation, even if we take a single example as showing a correlation, which it does not.

I never claimed causation in the logical sense, and indeed, ALL observations of physical and historical phenomena are and can only be correlations, as no physical or historical event can be said to be composed of a logically necessary relationship; however, the reason the senate fell is for the same reasons democracies have been historically known to fall, which is because of corruption, inefficiency, and expanding power. This is meant to be an inductive and not a deductive inference. Which should go without saying.

Please provide evidence that regulations increase the price for consumers, and that this is significant enough to afrect the mobility and prosperity of the lower classes.

Also provide evidence that regulations are imposed because of Marxist thought and enrich one class over another.

No I will not, because this is not a legitimate request of evidence for debate, but an act of trolling and sophistry.