muuh-gnu

Why did you waste your time responding then, and still do?

> Cows & Pigs don't deserve to be murdered for their meat, but we do it, to live.

We dont _need_ to eat meat. We _want_ to eat meat. We want it so much that we'll kill them to get it.

But for some psycho-social reason unknown to me, we're not willing to flat out admit that, and spend aeons constructing convoluted arguments why we are so so sorry but cant avoid killing them.

> If you are going to do it, own it.

As you can observe, exactly that last bit absolutely doesnt work. For some reason theyll fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting "I'll kill you now because you taste soo delicious".

> That doesn't benefit all of society now does it?

How does then involuntary wealth transfer from the rich to the poor benefit _all_ of society, including the rich?

> Attacking a neighbouring country won't benefit society

Wat? If attacking and robbing a neighbouring society wont benefit the attacking society, how does attacking and robbing the rich neighbour benefit the poor attacking neighbourhood? Its the same concept, just another scale.

Conquest and enslavement have been successful empire-building strategies for millenia.

> are rich ... because of rent seeking

Whats wrong with that? I work and build a house, you need a stay and pay a monthly rent, whats wrong with that except your envy?

> the world belonging to mankind they by violence [usually of their ancestors] have acquired a larger share of it's resources.

We're not talking about wealth-by-robbing, as you see above. Youre explicitely throwing chance (aka inheritance) and rent-seeking into the mix, even though they are completely moral ways to accumulate. If my ancestors were hard-working accumulators, and your ancestors wasteful rakes, it is difficult to construct an argument why half of my inheritance should be awarded to your ancestors progeny instead of my ancestors progeny. Why should the ant be forced to take from his children and give to the grasshoppers children?

> should we just let 9 starve so that the 1 can keep "his" portion?

If the society is composed of 10 people, 1 is rich and 9 are starving, who is "we"? "We" is either the rich guy or the 9 starving ones. There is no single entity called "we" that can impartially and benevolently move around wealth. So if he robbed you, it is not "his" portion in the first place, then its ok for its rightful owners to take it back, including by force. But if he didnt rob you, and just accumulated it by hard-working and saving, then it indeed _is_ his portion, and youre shit out of luck. If you can construct an argument why its ok for you to attack him because you brought yourself in a situation where you literally cant survive anymore without attacking a hard-working innocent accumulator, then he has every right to also premptively attack you in order to prevent your planned envy-motivated attack. Youre essentially advocating for an vicious, eat-or-be-eaten climate of constant conflict.

What makes you think I will try to constructively respond to your question if you dont try to constructively respond to mine?

> Does having rich people benefit all of society?

Who cares?

> If it doesn't then we should tax the rich

So if society is comprised of 10 people, and you devour one of them and redistribute to the other 9, thats OK simply because the 9 recipients benefit?

> If having wealth inequality does benefit society

Youre constructing your argument from a false premise, that the mob, or "society" as you call it, has a moral right to do everything it wants as long as it somehow extracts a benefit from that action.

If you can gang up and rob your own rich, why not arm up and attack a neighboring country and enslave its population? It would be a benefit for the stronger society after all. Or why not introduce slavery again? It certainly would be a benefit for the society of slave owners. Etc. Going by your "benefit über alles" line of thinking, you can legitimize basically any kind of atrocity imaginable.

> most viable and desirable ways to distribute wealth

None.

> If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail.

"If you dont pay protection money, we demolish your restaurant."

So essentially youre advocating for a society thats indistinguishable from a Yakuza-run shanty town.

Congrats, which basically ends our small discourse.

Whatever I'm advocating, youre advocating flat out mugging, and to conceal that, youre giving it other names.

Muging, aka forcible redistribution of other peoples wealth is called "communism", so stop pretending youre advocating something completely different by rebranding it over and over and over again.

UBI _doesnt work_ without forcibly taking from one group of people and giving it to another group. How forcible redistribution ends up you saw in Soviet Russia. Are you earning so little that you'd rather see our economy crumble like Soviet Russia, than to have hard working people keeping their wages to themselves without being mugged by envious low-earners?

> For example, with basic income

Oh a UBI communist again. Sooner or later every problem discussed leads to someone suggesting the good ole "tax the rich".

> paying people to stay home to care for their kids.

Why should I pay somebody else to stay home with _their_ kids?

What you and other UBIs are suggesting is nothing else than "redistribute other peoples wealth" communism.

It _only_ works if you take (by force) from one guy and give it to the other guy. It is not a _solution_ in any form, it is simply mugging.

> What's wrong with Common Lisp?

Nothing. But Schemers just passionately hate it since the 70s because it doesnt enforce their religious dogmas like recursion, continuations, unusable macros, and other similarly silly pretexts.

The fact that the GNU extension language became a Scheme instead of a Lisp is primarily a very personal decision by Richard Stallman. Early Lisp Machine companies like Symbolics refused to copyleft their stuff, so RMS started to hate them with a passion.

So even as he was a Lisp fan early on, which can be seen in Emacs, he for political reasons switched the GNU projet to Scheme, even as the GNU project had no working Scheme implementations but had two Lisp implementations (CLisp and GCL).

So to answer your question: Nothing is wrong with Lisp, but the dear leader hates it, because the Symbolics guys were meanies when he was 25 yrs old.

> And Michael Brown was probably a thug, so deserved to die?

He didnt "deserve" to die, but the fact that he violently robbed a store minutes before he died, maybe, _only maybe_, contributed to his violent death, dont you agree?

> Wow, trying to redefine racial diversity as racism.

If a diversity quota decides about you gettnig a job or not getting a job, then it is indistinguishable from a race quota, i.e. racism.

> These experiences will have shaped the two men differently.

You are implying that those negative experiences are a product of racism and not of simple statistics.

Maybe, only maybe, people _dont have_ as many problems with white guys wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie as they have with black guys wandering down a dark street wearing a hoodie, so they dont call the cops on the former and call the cops on the latter.

Youre implicitely ruling out the mere _possibility_ that there maybe, only maybe, _might_ be a problem with blacks, that isnt a problem with whites, asians, indians or hispanics.

> Xenophobic insults are not allowed on HN

This sentence was neither xenophobic nor an insult.

> If you do it again we will ban your account.

Stop threatening people for innocuous statements.

They didnt have to, neither Stroustrup nor Hejlsberg called their languages "a C".