Yzermandius19

Well, at least you got those loser points, but not getting two points against the Red Wings at this point is still pretty embarrassing. Avs-East have many of the same problem as Leafs-West, can get wins against teams that you'd expect them to lose to, yet oddly can't beat teams they should definitely beat. \ I feel your pain, I mean, the Avs lost to the Sens not that long ago, got blown out too, no loser points in that one, that was far worse, straight up infuriating that one, still pisses me off. Pouty McGee himself even had a three point night, solid revenge game performance right thur, can't get much worse than that. I feel like Intro Revenge was on loop in his head the entire game.

Indeed, which means, that the Panthers will probably trade for more bad contracts, Oh Floriduh, lulz.

What I say pretty much every time FLA makes a trade.

Your love of good intentions, displayed by political agreement with your beliefs, over actual results, while demonizing realists as having "given up" for emphasizing the importance of results over intentions, accusing them of denigrating virtue itself through the use of the term virtue signaling, well, that is a clear example of virtue signaling. You obviously believe that one side of the argument has a monopoly on virtue, and you seem to think it's the side constantly shouting how virtuous they are from the rooftops, over the side who makes fun of them for doing so, hence why you accused them of being virtue haters in the first place.

Yeah, that sure does make the virtue signaling even easier to make fun of than it usually is, which is saying something.

Again, one side thinking they have the monopoly on virtue, and shouting that from the rooftops, that's why the phrase exists, to make fun of those people. Actually virtuous people don't have the pathological need to tell everyone how virtuous they are, and how unvirtuous those who disagree with them are, they just do virtuous things, they don't need a pat on the back from like minded people to feel like they are doing good, they just do it. Virtue signalers are insecure about being virtuous and need public confirmation of their virtue to bolster their low-self esteem, actually being virtuous is less important than others viewing them to be virtuous, to the point where they often settle for popularity over virtue, usually because they are completely unable to tell the difference between the two.

You can't opt for any of those paths, there is no such world where everyone has good intentions that always produce desirable results, and wanting reality to conform to that doesn't bend reality to your will. The reason we love dropping the phrase virtue signaling is, virtue signalers think that everyone who has virtue has some pathological need to tell everyone how virtuous they are and how non-virtuous those who disagree with them are, but that is not the case. The virtue signalers pretending that their side of the argument has a monopoly on virtue, that's what the phrase is making fun of. Turning every political argument into a morality play where one side is backed by morality, and the reason the other side doesn't see things their way is they lack morality, that's some funny stuff, hence virtue signaling.

It will be different this time though, because World Government hasn't been tried, so you don't know that it won't work, the billionth time is the charm, this time the politicians will be saints, I promise! That is obviously fallacious reasoning, on the face of it. No True Scotsman, anyone?

The politicians and senior-most bureaucrats running the non-global governments of the world are doing so under public macroscope, it's called the free press, the public having access to a public macroscope to keep the government honest, that just doesn't result in the world that you think it does. Your theory is just wrong, history and current events show that quite clearly.

The public has access to that already and a One World Government isn't going to give them any more access, quite the opposite. You falsely assume that they don't have that access, because they don't agree with you about what should be done about a lack of government transparency, and if they did have access, then they would wholeheartedly agree with you. But that simply isn't the case, you just wish that it was.

As Dougie likes to say, a pox on all reformers. I wipe my a** with their "good intentions", I judge them on results, as any rational observer should.

Nah the real nightmare is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and those "dreamers" with good intentions often remain oblivious to that fact, and charge head long into dystopia thinking they are doing good, see the 20th century. Dreamers are nothing special, they are a dime a dozen, and good intentions doesn't always equal desirable outcomes, the world needs less dreamers oblivious to reality, and more realists who know how to actually address the issues that "dreamers" are so worried about, without the need to virtue signal. Virtue signaling is not more important than actual results, protip. Would rather live in a hypothetical world where people only have bad intentions and produce desirable results than a world where people only have good intentions and produce undesirable results, good intentions are hugely over-rated.

That isn't missing at all, the free press discuss that shit all the time, under their constitutionally protected right to free speech. You're just mad that the electorate remains ignorant despite that being the case, because you falsely believe that if they just had access to the information, they would be as upset with the government, for the exact same reasons that you are, but that's not the way reality works.

There is something wrong with government intervention, to attempt to achieve a dream, that will never be realized, and will have tons of negative consequences that makes the juice not worth the squeeze. Basing governance on unrealistic dreams that fly in the face of reality, that is not optimal, and that's my beef with your reasoning. The most sure fire way to end up in a dystopia, is believing that it's possible to achieve utopia, if the right politicians, government system or government policies are simply enacted, we simply haven't picked the right politicians/system/policies yet, be careful what you wish for.

You missed the point. The point was, politicians behaving with virtue and honesty, that's a myth, and a One World Government isn't a game changer that will force politicians to act in the best interests of the people, rather than themselves.

There was a time when no camera's existed, and there was no in-camera lobbying of governments. There was never a time when believing god was monitoring them kept politicians honest, history records no such instance where that was ever the case, before or after the invention of the camera. Getting rid of in-camera lobbying of governments is not a magical fix for that, history shows that quite definitively, you're dreaming.

Wrong, humans have been trying to get politicians to act virtuously and honestly since politicians first existed, it has just failed every time, and you are deluded enough to think that if it's just tried in a One World Government this time around, the billionth time will be the charm. Politicians are going to act like politicians, no matter what political system they are under, that's reality, there is no alternative, One World Government isn't going to change that. You might as well ask to live in a crime free world, or a poverty free world, and then suggest that world government is the best way to achieve it, the only reason we don't live in a crime/poverty free world, is we haven't tried World Government yet. Makes as much sense as your current line of reasoning, expecting humans to be saints instead of humans, is a poor basis to design a government around.

Don't need a one world government to put on your big boy pants, eyeball is just under the mistaken impression that you can't put on your big boy pants without them. /shrugs

There is reason we don't let kindergartners run the world, wishful thinking usually doesn't stand up to reality. Wanting politicians to be honest and virtuous is just going to lead to crushed expectations and faulty political analysis, it isn't going to change reality one iota. The world you want to live in, will never exist, expecting politicians to not act like politicians, because they are under the thumb of one world government, is asinine.

They already monitor the very top, problem is, you can't make honesty and virtue inescapable at the very top of government and it's a fools errand to attempt to achieve such a utopia, that's not how politics work, and it never will work that way, wishful thinking plain and simple. One World Government is not a game changer that will stop this from happening, that's a pipe dream.

If there was a world government, people would be less informed than ever about people living in different parts of the world, worldwide issues would suck up the entire agenda and make people less knowledgeable about local issues. Or worse yet the highly populated areas of the world will be dictating to less highly populated areas of the world, how to deal with local issues that know next to nothing about.

I will resist transparency even more than the current status quo does, your proposed solution is counter-productive to your stated goals.

But that isn't the case, it will make it harder to monitor, because the complexity of such a government is exponentially higher than 200 smaller governments. The EU isn't easier to keep track of than Germany, that's preposterous, scale up to a world government and it's even more preposterous.

A world government would impede that from happening more than under the current status quo. You don't need a world government to do that, they will just get in the way. None of the reasons that you claim to want a world government will actually be improved if you had a world government, so I have no idea why you seem to think it's such a good idea.

You said that was the reason why you wanted a world government, to help people keep more of an eye on the government, the free press already does that, no world government required. Looks like you'll need another justification for your world government, the status quo has that covered, already, and a world government would just impede the free press, so you would actually get less government transparency, not more.