ObjectivityIncarnate

Getting the Orange Box for $10 back in the day has to be my all-time best.

It’s not perfect, so you have to do it again tomorrow. /s

But I would constantly go, “Asmongold said…”

Must be hard to break off a friendship with yourself, lol

Why not make a law against using unrealized capital gains as loan collateral?

Because that would outlaw home equity loans, for one thing. Anything you own that’s increased in value since you started owning it is “unrealized capital gains” by definition, until/unless you sell it, not just stocks.

The fact is, taking a loan out using stuff you own as collateral, regardless of what it is, is a perfectly normal thing to do that in itself deprives no one of anything. Lenders aren’t in the business of throwing money out the window—they make these loans because they get repaid, and then some. Someone who takes out a home equity loan and uses the money to renovate their house so that it’ll sell for an increased price beyond the loan amount + the interest rate, is making the exact same ‘move’ as someone who takes a loan out using their stock in a company as collateral, and uses that money to do things that make that stock increase in value beyond the loan amount + the interest rate.

Then the stocks used as collateral should be taxed as realized gains.

Why? They haven’t been realized. Literally nothing happens to collateral unless the loan is defaulted on. Do you think you should your house should be treated as realized gains (i.e. the same as if you sold it), if you take out a home equity loan?

we could make it so that it only applies to loans over some arbitrary amount…(within a certain time period to counter multiple smaller loans as loopholes)

This is literally impossible to realistically enforce, total waste of resources and effort to even try. Myriad ways to spread it out over different people/entities/etc.

Those loans are their main source of income.

Loans aren’t income. They only reason this ‘move’ works at all is because they are creating value at a rate that exceeds the interest rate + inflation. Other than the scale of the ‘tactic’, it’s no different from taking a home equity loan to improve your home so that the amount it sells for has increased by more than was lost from the interest on/repayment of the loan.

Realize that the lenders giving these ultra-wealthy these loans are not in the business of throwing their money out the window for fun. They make these loans only because they get repaid, with enough interest to make being without those funds in the meantime worth it for them.

People don’t take out home equity loans to spend on groceries, maids, or yachts. They spend it on improving or repairing their home.

1. Having worked in a financial institution for many years, I can tell you that this is not even close to universally true. It’s very common to use it as a debt consolidation strategy.
2. Even assuming this is always true, you’re essentially saying that they use the money from the loan against which their house is collateral, to do things that increase the value of the house. But borrowing using your shares in a company as collateral, in order to invest into that same company to increase its value, is essentially an identical ‘strategy’. You’re just arbitrarily deciding it’s bad for one illiquid asset to be used as collateral, but not another, even if the goal (increasing the value of the thing used as collateral) is identical.

What needs to happen is the loans that banks give them against their non-liquid assets should be taxed as income.

But loans aren’t income. You have to pay them back.

Pretending a loan is income and in turn taxing it as such, just because the ‘wrong thing’ was used as collateral, is nonsensically-arbitrary, I think.

P.S. Home equity loans are also ‘loans against non-liquid assets’.

Mansplaining requires acting on an assumption of ignorance. Acting on an overt display of perceived ignorance (even if the perception is incorrect) can never be mansplaining.

🤓 Actually, that isn’t mansplaining by definition. Criticizing something that’s directly perceived can never fall under that definition. “Splaining” requires action taken based on an unjustified assumption of ignorance. If you’re criticizing something that’s obviously apparent, there’s no assuming going on.

Reminder that you’re someone who reacts to being told condoms are less convenient to use than long-term hormonal contraception by claiming the person who told you hates women, lol.

You know I’m right. There’s no other explanation for devolving into nonsensical personal insults while simultaneously completely evading my rebuttals.

So I accept your concession.

Good luck getting enough volunteers to work in and maintain a sewer system.

I accept your concession.

Some women like that little dance of rejecting and the guy not giving up, but even then only if they think you’re cute beforehand. But most women will just find that creepy and off-putting.

The big frustration comes with the fact that the “most” women above are still happily consuming the romance movies/novels with the toxic paradigm you describe, along with the “some”. And then they’ll turn around and get indignant about it existing in real life, while promoting/encouraging it culturally simultaneously.

Look at the colossal sales figures for 50 Shades of Grey, what percentage of that do you think came from men?

Do you believe that anytime anyone agrees to do something, but only if they get paid, that they’re being exploited?

so many people view men as only wanting sex, so if a man complains about being lonely, isolated, or being unloved, it seems like everyone jumps to the conclusion that he’s only talking about sex. Then they scorn him, reinforcing the pattern of loneliness and building the sense of frustration and being a victim of ostracization.

Precisely.

Some people just value kindness and try to be nice for the sake of being nice; but if it lands them with accusations and scorn then it’ll only go on so long before they stop. And then people will scorn them either for being rude to women or snubbing them.

Not only that, but that will mean that the only men remaining, who haven’t stopped, are that minority that are being transactional, which further distorts women’s perception of men as a whole.

The reality is that men are also conscious and complex human beings, and depicting them as these simple and one-dimensional sex pests isn’t really moving the dialogue forward. All it does is give women a temporary feeling of moral superiority which they then chase like any other addiction.

Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

don’t know what subjective is lol

No, you don’t. Subjective means an opinion, a value judgment that’s not tied to actual facts. For example, someone liking the exact same food more than another person. It’s the same food, neither of you are “correct” or “incorrect” about how delicious it is, because that’s subjective.

Nothing I said was subjective. Condoms are objectively less convenient than any of the other methods I mentioned, for the factual reasons I stated. No method of contraception is less convenient than one that is a separate object that you need to physically possess on your person at the time of the sexual act. Barrier methods are objectively the least convenient method to prevent pregnancy.

You invented some arbitrary metric of “birth control is only convenient and effective when you don’t have to carry it with you,”

No, you made that up. I’ve only ever been talking about relative convenience. You entered this conversation when you responded to my stating the fact that female methods are more convenient than the one male method.

However, it is a fact that even if all other things were equal, ‘have to carry it with you’ is objectively less convenient than ‘don’t have to carry it with you’. Any condition, any “have to”, that applies to a method is a mark against its convenience. Obviously.

As if it’s such a strain on your gentle countenance to bear the massive weight of less than 2 grams.

What a ridiculous straw man, I never said one word about the weight being a factor. It costs nothing not to be disingenuous, you know.

Do you not carry your phone, wallet, keys, and trousers with you?

I’m going to set aside the idiotic false equivalence for a second, to point out that you’re inadvertently agreeing with me.

You carry your phone, wallet, and keys, because you have to—it’s literally an inconvenience. If your locks were biometric and therefore you didn’t have to carry your keys around, that would be more convenient. Being able to use Google Wallet et al to purchase things without having your wallet on you is more convenient than having to carry your wallet around.

You’re an absolute tosser. Just say you hate women, mate. that’d be easier.

I understand that you’re very aware dishonesty is easier (as you demonstrated with all of the disingenuous nonsense above), but I’m not a dishonest person.

Imagine being so outraged over someone stating the fact that condoms are less convenient than contraception methods that are one and done for weeks/months/years, that you’re literally insulting them and have actually convinced yourself that they hate women!

How foolish.

they’re platforming and subsequently legitimising them.

You could make that argument about them being allowed to have an account at all, but simply marking that account in such a way that informs the userbase that it’s not a troll/parody account or something, but the actual organization?

That doesn’t “platform” them, they’re already on the platform at the time this happened. And confirming that something asserted to be true, is in fact true, is a good thing.

Two males have any sort of positive interaction with each other
Weirdos: Wow so GAY

Saying it in a positive way doesn’t really make it better. Normalize men being able to enjoy each other’s company without assuming they’re falling in love or lusting after each other, sheesh.

The classic analogy is the jar of 100 sweets.

Classic, but deeply flawed.

This is literally the same way white supremacists ‘justify’ being distrustful/suspicious of black people in general.

The mental stress that this level of paranoia inflicts on you is likely going to be more harmful on average.

You’re best off overall if you take reasonable precautions (having a small weapon/pepper spray), and just go about your day without stressing about it all the time.