Re: oh, it's called a sweeping generalization retard ...

On Aug 1, 2026 at 5:51:37 PM EDT, "Julian" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 01/08/2026 22:15, Tara wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 2026 at 2:40:32 PM EDT, "Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/1/2026 2:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 13:40:13 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/1/2026 1:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> u literally justify overriding free market principles with closed
>>>>>> borders because u profit from it!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> seriously, capitalists have no principles. it's all up for grabs when
>>>>>> there is profit to be made!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> it's fucking incredible you cried about how capitalism depends on people
>>>>>> acting ethically ... while here you are in just a thread over shitting
>>>>>> on basic principles of voluntary association because YOU benefit from
>>>>>> doing so!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> god ur such a delusionally confused basket case wilson and ur wholly
>>>>>> incapable of realizing it because the level of cognitive dissonance in
>>>>>> just how much a shithead u've been for long would be too much for ur
>>>>>> underdeveloped mind to handle,
>>>>> 
>>>>> My business actually profits more from open borders and no tariffs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Open borders means more customers. Over 20% of my customers are immigrants.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No tariffs means lower prices for my products.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I support restricted immigration and some tariffs because I think it
>>>>> benefits the young and low pay workers. And in the end that will benefit
>>>>> the country at large even if it works against my short-term interests.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As to free association, that's been illegal in this country for 50 some
>>>>> years. I'd support bringing it back as it empowers the individual
>>>>> against the bureaucratic machine state.
>>>> 
>>>> That sounds yummy.  But it does not square with what you have been
>>>> saying here for the last ten years that I have been noticing.
>>> 
>>> I've never once said that my opposition to mass immigration was because
>>> it benefits me. Same with tariffs. That was solely your interpretation.
>>> 
>>> It seems to me like you're hearing what you want to hear because it fits
>>> your ideological biases. And because it's easier to deal with people
>>> when you categorize them into boxes that have been predefined.
>>> 
>>> "Boom, into that box you go Wilson. And never shall you be allowed to
>>> escape!"
>> 
>> True. This is why your view, if you want to be understood, when conversing
>> with certain people, I think needs to be pretty well spelled out. maybe over
>> and over again.
> 
> It doesn't work with people who are so sure of their mind reading
> ability that they believe they know your mind, thoughts, words and deeds
> better than you do yourself no matter how many times you tell them
> otherwise. If they respected you one correction would suffice.

Yeah!  Lets get some respect here eh. :)