Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT
 

Saelune:
If you are going to make a call for civility, you should yourself be civil. Making personal attacks doesn't help your case.

Pot, kettle, Saelune :(

runic knight:

Heavy consolidation of state power? Promotion of federally backed systems to aid the poor and disillusioned as a way to gain favor among the populous? Promotion of censorship and control of language, arts, and criticisms by declaring those who make them that don't support the narrative are dangerous and thus not deserving the ability to make them? Heavy concentration on identity as part of a group and especially so in conjunction with justifying horrible behavior and tactics out of claims that everything bad going on is because you are part of said group? Promotion of violence against undesirable groups of acceptable targets? Promotion of heavily ideologically controlled media that pushed narratives instead of facts? Open disregard of established political systems and their rulings to instead promote their leadership or condemn their opposition in spite of the existing rule of law?

I'd say for the purpose of what I openly admitted was hyperbolic to show the worthlessness of the generalization committed, it has at least a defensible argument in comparing it to the modern western left (the "classic" left would be a far harder case, as the old platforms of promotion of individual liberties, helping promote equality, promoting civil liberties and equal treatment under the law, and promotion of skepticism rather than ideology were the antithesis of many core nazi values, but since the current western left has abandoned those values, or warped them in platform, I wouldn't consider the modern left part of that same distinction).

It's probably better not to waste your time and effort on left vs right, it's almost all mud-slinging. But if you're gonna sling that mud, sling it correctly.

The Nazis were right wing. They appealed to prosperity over equality and installed strict social hierarchies. They were also progressive socialists. You can do those at the same time. If people want to connect modern American conservatives to revolutionary German socialists because both happen to like social order, let them drown in their own argument, don't try and claim the opposite.

If you want to point to the left going crazy and slaughtering people, I recommend the French Revolution. They built their revolution on liberty and equality and ended up in The Reign of Terror. Not just a reign of terror, The Reign of Terror.

Abomination:

Saelune:
If you are going to make a call for civility, you should yourself be civil. Making personal attacks doesn't help your case.

Pot, kettle, Saelune :(

I don't recall Saelune ever calling for civility, mind.

Thaluikhain:

Abomination:

Saelune:
If you are going to make a call for civility, you should yourself be civil. Making personal attacks doesn't help your case.

Pot, kettle, Saelune :(

I don't recall Saelune ever calling for civility, mind.

I agree with that statement, however there are two parts to their argument and Saelune does fall quite flat on the latter.

Abomination:

Saelune:
If you are going to make a call for civility, you should yourself be civil. Making personal attacks doesn't help your case.

Pot, kettle, Saelune :(

I am not the one claiming to support civility. If runic knight is going to make their claims, they should follow through. They don't.

Saelune:
Citation needed. If you mean Pulse, he was a right-wing extremist.

Registered Democrat last time he was affiliated with a political party. How do you figure he was a right-wing extremist?

Leg End:

Saelune:
Citation needed. If you mean Pulse, he was a right-wing extremist.

Registered Democrat last time he was affiliated with a political party. How do you figure he was a right-wing extremist?

Citation needed. Repeating your claim is not citing anything.

Saelune:
Repeating your claim is not citing anything.

Ironic. But here you go, a source you'll likely accept.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Citation needed. If you mean Pulse, he was a right-wing extremist.

Registered Democrat last time he was affiliated with a political party. How do you figure he was a right-wing extremist?

Last time being the operative word. Last time was 2006, a decade before Pulse. Which... Is proof of him once being a Democrat but not necessarily his current. It's the kind of thing that you could spout FAKE NEWS at, becuaee it doesn't tell the whole story. As far as I'm aware, there is no further indication of whether he supports any political party. Or any ideology other than praising Abu Bakr and hating gay people, both attributes of Right-Wing Extremists (Muslim flavour). People change political affiliation and ideology over the decades. Some US presidents made a big showing of changing thier political allegiance before gaining office.

I usually go with actions rather than statements. His targets were NOT Left Wing targets. But I admit that there is murkiness here.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Repeating your claim is not citing anything.

Ironic. But here you go, a source you'll likely accept.

So you accept all the guilt of right-wing terrorists then?

Joe Manchin is a registered Democrat but has no left-wing views. Trump was a Democrat too once.

If you want us to accept a hit for Pulse, then you got to accept all yours, and oh boy thats a heavier load to take.

But then, Democrats do like to weed out our bad. Al Franken, Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinsten too can all rot. We dont support our bad.

As for Omar, despite being a 'Democrat', he supported right-wing Islamic terrorism, and can rot too.

trunkage:
there is no further indication of whether he supports any political party. Or any ideology other than praising Abu Bakr and hating gay people

There is apparently a big thing going on whether it was hating gay people at all. It supposedly wasn't his first target, and he went after it because it was a nightclub, and not any specific one.

Saelune:
So you accept all the guilt of right-wing terrorists then?

Nani?

Joe Manchin is a registered Democrat but has no left-wing views.

Which might be why he's not particularly offensive to me. Still has enough issues.

Trump was a Democrat too once.

A lot more recently than most of us might think, at that. He still has Dem lines of thought, like everywhere he agreed with Hillary.

If you want us to accept a hit for Pulse, then you got to accept all yours, and oh boy thats a heavier load to take.

Mine would be Timothy McVeigh.

But then, Democrats do like to weed out our bad. Al Franken, Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinsten too can all rot. We dont support our bad.

You stuffed Bernie into a fire and propped up Hillary Clinton in an effort to defeat your enemy. The Bad was accepted in your pursuit to fight what you saw as a 'greater evil'.

As for Omar, despite being a 'Democrat', he supported right-wing Islamic terrorism, and can rot too.

He apparently supported getting the US out of the middle east so... bleh? It's become an interesting subject and I hope I can find out more.

Leg End:

trunkage:
there is no further indication of whether he supports any political party. Or any ideology other than praising Abu Bakr and hating gay people

There is apparently a big thing going on whether it was hating gay people at all. It supposedly wasn't his first target, and he went after it because it was a nightclub, and not any specific one.

Saelune:
So you accept all the guilt of right-wing terrorists then?

Nani?

Joe Manchin is a registered Democrat but has no left-wing views.

Which might be why he's not particularly offensive to me. Still has enough issues.

Trump was a Democrat too once.

A lot more recently than most of us might think, at that. He still has Dem lines of thought, like everywhere he agreed with Hillary.

If you want us to accept a hit for Pulse, then you got to accept all yours, and oh boy thats a heavier load to take.

Mine would be Timothy McVeigh.

But then, Democrats do like to weed out our bad. Al Franken, Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinsten too can all rot. We dont support our bad.

You stuffed Bernie into a fire and propped up Hillary Clinton in an effort to defeat your enemy. The Bad was accepted in your pursuit to fight what you saw as a 'greater evil'.

As for Omar, despite being a 'Democrat', he supported right-wing Islamic terrorism, and can rot too.

He apparently supported getting the US out of the middle east so... bleh? It's become an interesting subject and I hope I can find out more.

People change...or lie. Sometimes both. Whatever part of Trump was ever 'Democrat' did not survive into the 2000's, so its moot. Hillary too, 90's Hillary didn't run for President in 2016.

But you can continue to shirk blame way from right-wingers all you want. It wont make it true.

Saelune:
People change...or lie. Sometimes both. Whatever part of Trump was ever 'Democrat' did not survive into the 2000's, so its moot. Hillary too, 90's Hillary didn't run for President in 2016.

I think she did. I think the exact same Hillary survived to 2016 and still just as much hated those black super predators and those gays that she had her husband screw with. By your reasoning, I'm entirely correct, no?

But you can continue to shirk blame way from right-wingers all you want. It wont make it true.

I think you're actively ignoring what I'm saying now. Or just pretending it doesn't exist.

Leg End:

Saelune:
People change...or lie. Sometimes both. Whatever part of Trump was ever 'Democrat' did not survive into the 2000's, so its moot. Hillary too, 90's Hillary didn't run for President in 2016.

I think she did. I think the exact same Hillary survived to 2016 and still just as much hated those black super predators and those gays that she had her husband screw with. By your reasoning, I'm entirely correct, no?

But you can continue to shirk blame way from right-wingers all you want. It wont make it true.

I think you're actively ignoring what I'm saying now. Or just pretending it doesn't exist.

If nothing else, she would have stayed on the progressive path Obama set her on. After that, I don't really care if she was happy about supporting LGBT people as long as her actions did.

I know you, I know your views, your methods, your logic, and I have no desire to entertain it more than I should. You're a far-right winger. You cling to a title of libertarianism as a defense against that, but the views you state, the people you support belie that title.

And you refuse to state your political views publicly and clearly.

Saelune:
If nothing else, she would have stayed on the progressive path Obama set her on.

That faux progressive path and the idea that she'd follow it is exactly why she lost. Nobody wanted another term of Obama.

After that, I don't really care if she was happy about supporting LGBT people as long as her actions did.

...Are you serious? You're saying you don't care if an actual bigot wins, as long as they take steps to pander to the base?

I know you, I know your views, your methods, your logic, and I have no desire to entertain it more than I should.

And you're still ignoring me telling you that my political party isn't the only one. Don't go Libertarian, fine. Hold up a sign for Jill Stein or something, I dunno.

You're a far-right winger.

And you're probably an actual communist, now that I think about it...

You cling to a title of libertarianism as a defense against that, but the views you state, the people you support belie that title.

And you refuse to state your political views publicly and clearly.

Alright. What views do I state go against me being a Libertarian? That don't shoot me all the way to Anarcho-Capitalist, that is. It sounds like you're miffed that I didn't vote for Gary Johnson.

Leg End:

Saelune:
If nothing else, she would have stayed on the progressive path Obama set her on.

That faux progressive path and the idea that she'd follow it is exactly why she lost. Nobody wanted another term of Obama.

After that, I don't really care if she was happy about supporting LGBT people as long as her actions did.

...Are you serious? You're saying you don't care if an actual bigot wins, as long as they take steps to pander to the base?

I know you, I know your views, your methods, your logic, and I have no desire to entertain it more than I should.

And you're still ignoring me telling you that my political party isn't the only one. Don't go Libertarian, fine. Hold up a sign for Jill Stein or something, I dunno.

You're a far-right winger.

And you're probably an actual communist, now that I think about it...

You cling to a title of libertarianism as a defense against that, but the views you state, the people you support belie that title.

And you refuse to state your political views publicly and clearly.

Alright. What views do I state go against me being a Libertarian? That don't shoot me all the way to Anarcho-Capitalist, that is. It sounds like you're miffed that I didn't vote for Gary Johnson.

'No one wanted more Obama' is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

I am saying that a bad person doing good things is better than a bad person doing bad things. I would prefer a good person doing good things though.

I don't like Stein.

Right-wingers use Communist like they criticize the left for with Nazi.

I am 'miffed' that anyone could support right-wing political groups, and more 'miffed' at the constant reluctance for right-wingers to admit to their own political views. If they aren't bad, why pretend you don't support it?

Saelune:
'No one wanted more Obama' is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

You just said she was on the same path. There was a rather sizable chunk of people that voted because that's effectively what she was.

I am saying that a bad person doing good things is better than a bad person doing bad things.

No, you're saying you like people to pay lip service to you. I prefer something being genuine.

I would prefer a good person doing good things though.

I prefer someone to be honest with their beliefs. That's why I inherently dislike politicians. Hillary was a career one.

I don't like Stein.

Who do you like?

Right-wingers use Communist like they criticize the left for with Nazi.

Not quite as bad and the verbiage is usually more varied, but yeah.

I am 'miffed' that anyone could support right-wing political groups, and more 'miffed' at the constant reluctance for right-wingers to admit to their own political views. If they aren't bad, why pretend you don't support it?

If you're talking to me specifically with that bit, why can't you tell me which views of mine aren't in line with being a Libertarian or even more extreme?

Leg End:

Saelune:
'No one wanted more Obama' is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

You just said she was on the same path. There was a rather sizable chunk of people that voted because that's effectively what she was.

I am saying that a bad person doing good things is better than a bad person doing bad things.

No, you're saying you like people to pay lip service to you. I prefer something being genuine.

I would prefer a good person doing good things though.

I prefer someone to be honest with their beliefs. That's why I inherently dislike politicians. Hillary was a career one.

I don't like Stein.

Who do you like?

Right-wingers use Communist like they criticize the left for with Nazi.

Not quite as bad and the verbiage is usually more varied, but yeah.

I am 'miffed' that anyone could support right-wing political groups, and more 'miffed' at the constant reluctance for right-wingers to admit to their own political views. If they aren't bad, why pretend you don't support it?

If you're talking to me specifically with that bit, why can't you tell me which views of mine aren't in line with being a Libertarian or even more extreme?

-You- said no one wanted more Obama. Now you're saying people did. Make up your mind.

Then why do you support Trump?

Then why do you support Trump?

Obama.

Right-wingers who use communist as a slur dont know what communism is.

Why cant you? People get mad when I point out their views for them, so why not take this time to self-identify?

Saelune:
-You- said no one wanted more Obama. Now you're saying people did. Make up your mind.

Obama man bad.

Then why do you support Trump?

Then why do you support Trump?

He'll say fuck and is the big orange elephant in the room, and I love it. America First.

Obama.

...You couldn't even say Bernie.

Right-wingers who use communist as a slur dont know what communism is.

Left-wingers who use Nazi as a slur don't know what Nazism is.

Why cant you? People get mad when I point out their views for them, so why not take this time to self-identify?

Saelune. Listen to me very carefully. You have not pointed out my views, despite me actively asking you to. You're actively evading my question. What are my views and how do they go against being Libertarian? This shouldn't be a difficult question for you, if you're correct.

Leg End:

Saelune:
-You- said no one wanted more Obama. Now you're saying people did. Make up your mind.

Obama man bad.

Then why do you support Trump?

Then why do you support Trump?

He'll say fuck and is the big orange elephant in the room, and I love it. America First.

Obama.

...You couldn't even say Bernie.

Right-wingers who use communist as a slur dont know what communism is.

Left-wingers who use Nazi as a slur don't know what Nazism is.

Why cant you? People get mad when I point out their views for them, so why not take this time to self-identify?

Saelune. Listen to me very carefully. You have not pointed out my views, despite me actively asking you to. You're actively evading my question. What are my views and how do they go against being Libertarian? This shouldn't be a difficult question for you, if you're correct.

You support Trump, you hate Obama.

I dont like Bernie.

You're actively evading identifying your own political views. Why? Why not put me in my place and clearly list your views? I know what your views are, and most of the people in the other thread know what your views are. We arent falling for it.

Leg End:
No, you're saying you like people to pay lip service to you. I prefer something being genuine.

Going to have to stop you there Leg End because if we go back to what Saelune actually said which was:

Saelune:

After that, I don't really care if she was happy about supporting LGBT people as long as her actions did.

Then you'll see that lip service is the exact opposite of what's being asked for. Saelune is sating that if Hillary took action to give equal rights to the LGBT+ crowd then it wouldn't matter if she didn't like doing it, because they still end up with equal rights. Actual action is what is being asked for, not just favourable words. You've either not understood or deliberately misinterpreted whats been said to you

Saelune:
You support Trump, you hate Obama.

My support for Donald isn't nearly as high as it used to be, but I do hate Obama.

I dont like Bernie.

That surprises me greatly.

You're actively evading identifying your own political views. Why? Why not put me in my place and clearly list your views? I know what your views are, and most of the people in the other thread know what your views are. We arent falling for it.

I don't know how much simpler I can put this.

Government bad.
Authoritarianism bad.
Guns good.
Freedom good.
Freedom of Association good.
Property good.
Leaving everyone the fuck alone good.

I am a simple man.

Palindromemordnilap:

Going to have to stop you there Leg End because if we go back to what Saelune actually said which was:

Saelune:

After that, I don't really care if she was happy about supporting LGBT people as long as her actions did.

Then you'll see that lip service is the exact opposite of what's being asked for. Saelune is sating that if Hillary took action to give equal rights to the LGBT+ crowd then it wouldn't matter if she didn't like doing it, because they still end up with equal rights. Actual action is what is being asked for, not just favourable words. You've either not understood or deliberately misinterpreted whats been said to you

I don't trust Clinton to follow through on anything relating to equal rights, considering she has had a history of taking them away. She's a career politician and has the fine tongue of one. Admittedly my reading comprehension has gone out the window the past year so I'm probably bungling something somewhere.

Leg End:

Palindromemordnilap:

Going to have to stop you there Leg End because if we go back to what Saelune actually said which was:

Saelune:

After that, I don't really care if she was happy about supporting LGBT people as long as her actions did.

Then you'll see that lip service is the exact opposite of what's being asked for. Saelune is sating that if Hillary took action to give equal rights to the LGBT+ crowd then it wouldn't matter if she didn't like doing it, because they still end up with equal rights. Actual action is what is being asked for, not just favourable words. You've either not understood or deliberately misinterpreted whats been said to you

I don't trust Clinton to follow through on anything relating to equal rights, considering she has had a history of taking them away. She's a career politician and has the fine tongue of one. Admittedly my reading comprehension has gone out the window the past year so I'm probably bungling something somewhere.

What you think of Hillary is irrelevant in this context, as the question being asked wasn't "Do you think Hillary will go through with these promises to LGBT+?" it was "Would you care that Hillary didn't like the promises that she was nevertheless carrying out?" Which Saelune answered, only caring if the promises get kept regardless of how much the person keeping them dislikes it. You then went off on a tangent, and I'm still trying to work out if that was a deliberate attempt at a strawman or not

Palindromemordnilap:
You then went off on a tangent, and I'm still trying to work out if that was a deliberate attempt at a strawman or not

No, that's just the 16 hours on -4 hours of sleep talking. I think my point somewhere was that the chances of her actions actually supporting the LGBT community were near nil.

Leg End:

Saelune:
You support Trump, you hate Obama.

My support for Donald isn't nearly as high as it used to be, but I do hate Obama.

I dont like Bernie.

That surprises me greatly.

You're actively evading identifying your own political views. Why? Why not put me in my place and clearly list your views? I know what your views are, and most of the people in the other thread know what your views are. We arent falling for it.

I don't know how much simpler I can put this.

Government bad.
Authoritarianism bad.
Guns good.
Freedom good.
Freedom of Association good.
Property good.
Leaving everyone the fuck alone good.

I am a simple man.

Yes, it is far from a " simple" world however.
1) Elaborate on " government bad".
2) What do you propose happen to you if you become too sick or injured to work and you no longer have savings or family to provide for you?
3) What do you propose happen to you if have no access to earn enough to provide shelter, food, medicine for yourself or your loved ones due to:
a) Natural disaster
b) Man made disaster
c) shifting economy that obsoletes your ability to work or be paid a living income?
4) Should access to resources be only made available to those who can afford them or have the force necessary to take them via force?
5) Do you think that wealth distributed by unethical or illegal means should be retained by those who " stole" it, or should it be returned to those who were not appropriately paid?
6) Who do you think is responsible for the draining of wealth from communities across the US thus preventing them from reinvesting in their communities and how do you think this should be resolved to make it more sustainable and beneficial to those communities?
7) Should the government protect endangered species of plants and animals?
8) Should the government protect the people from contaminated soil, air and water?
9) Should anyone be allowed to purchase firearms?
10) Should people be allowed to bring firearms into bars, liquor stores, hospitals and other places they have been banned from due to previous issues and continued risks?

Okay limited myself to 10, though there are far too many issues to list here.

Leg End:

Saelune:
You support Trump, you hate Obama.

My support for Donald isn't nearly as high as it used to be, but I do hate Obama.

I dont like Bernie.

That surprises me greatly.

You're actively evading identifying your own political views. Why? Why not put me in my place and clearly list your views? I know what your views are, and most of the people in the other thread know what your views are. We arent falling for it.

I don't know how much simpler I can put this.

Government bad.
Authoritarianism bad.
Guns good.
Freedom good.
Freedom of Association good.
Property good.
Leaving everyone the fuck alone good.

I am a simple man.

A government that treats their citizens like their own children to care, protect and raise to be responsible people good. That helps them when down to learn to get up, even if it has to help them up a bunch first.

Authoritarianism bad.

Insane people with guns bad. I dont think no one should have guns, I just find those most adamant to have guns usually dont deserve them. Also for us to treat shootings as bad and avoidable, cause they are.

Freedom is a vague term. If you take it literally, then you have The Purge, and I dont want The Purge.

Again, vague. You should not get in trouble for drug possession cause your buddy had some drugs you did not know about on them. But if you hang out at Neo-Nazi bars, thats on you.

I honestly dont know what you mean with that one.

Leaving everyone the fuck alone would be fine if we would enforce eachother leaving eachother the fuck alone too. Your rights end where mine begin, but that is where right-wingers like to get hypocritical. Why is it ok to harass LGBT people, but not ok to harass people who want to harass LGBT people? It is the constant hypocrisy that really gets me.

Palindromemordnilap:

Leg End:
No, you're saying you like people to pay lip service to you. I prefer something being genuine.

Going to have to stop you there Leg End because if we go back to what Saelune actually said which was:

Saelune:

After that, I don't really care if she was happy about supporting LGBT people as long as her actions did.

Then you'll see that lip service is the exact opposite of what's being asked for. Saelune is sating that if Hillary took action to give equal rights to the LGBT+ crowd then it wouldn't matter if she didn't like doing it, because they still end up with equal rights. Actual action is what is being asked for, not just favourable words. You've either not understood or deliberately misinterpreted whats been said to you

Apparently holding some limp rainbow flag does more for LGBT people than actually fighting for equal rights for LGBT people.

Lil devils x:

Yes, it is far from a " simple" world however.

That's what they want you to think. Everyone loves to over-complicate everything.

1) Elaborate on " government bad".

Wait, are we really doing this? Good god, can't a man just hate the government in peace? Government is ass. Smaller the better, none is preferable.

2) What do you propose happen to you if you become too sick or injured to work and you no longer have savings or family to provide for you?

Charity or I just die because if I'm that screwed, I don't want to live anyway. And I'll throw in that I'm a supporter of the Right to Die, if that didn't become obvious.

3) What do you propose happen to you if have no access to earn enough to provide shelter, food, medicine for yourself or your loved ones due to:
a) Natural disaster
b) Man made disaster
c) shifting economy that obsoletes your ability to work or be paid a living income?

See above. And C is rapidly approaching the Automation question and is a thread in of itself. Shelter and food can be done without currency. Natural alternatives for medicine, and the really major stuff isn't going to be covered by insurance or something like the NHS anyway.

4) Should access to resources be only made available to those who can afford them or have the force necessary to take them via force?

Reasonable claim and exploitation of resources, then barter and trade. Not technically answering your question, but I'm stickin to it.

5) Do you think that wealth distributed by unethical or illegal means should be retained by those who " stole" it, or should it be returned to those who were not appropriately paid?

Give a situation as an example? You're roughly speaking of extreme undercompensation and the like, right? Exploitation?

6) Who do you think is responsible for the draining of wealth from communities across the US thus preventing them from reinvesting in their communities and how do you think this should be resolved to make it more sustainable and beneficial to those communities?

Government, and smarter spending after getting bullshit regulation and taxes out of pocket. Monopolies don't just create themselves.

7) Should the government protect endangered species of plants and animals?

No, here's part of why. Privately funded groups can do it better.

8) Should the government protect the people from contaminated soil, air and water?

No, because Flint is still screwed. Government can't be trusted to do anything efficiently or effectively.

9) Should anyone be allowed to purchase firearms?

Yes. I firmly believe in the spirit and the text of the Second Amendment.

10) Should people be allowed to bring firearms into bars, liquor stores, hospitals and other places they have been banned from due to previous issues and continued risks?

Yes, unless the owner of the establishment says otherwise.

Okay limited myself to 10, though there are far too many issues to list here.

Why do you think I just TL;DR it? It's a simple enough concept, usually. Non-Aggression Principle and all that.

Saelune:
A government that treats their citizens like their own children to care, protect and raise to be responsible people good. That helps them when down to learn to get up, even if it has to help them up a bunch first.

...The person who should be doing all that is the parent of that person. Government acting like a parent and raising people never turns out good. Ever.

Insane people with guns bad.

Yeah but we all have guns so minimal issue there.

I dont think no one should have guns, I just find those most adamant to have guns usually dont deserve them.

Deserve has nothing to do with it.

Also for us to treat shootings as bad and avoidable, cause they are.

Raising our kids instead of having TV or the Government do it is a good start.

Freedom is a vague term. If you take it literally, then you have The Purge, and I dont want The Purge.

That'd violate the NAP. And that's a stupid movie.

Again, vague. You should not get in trouble for drug possession cause your buddy had some drugs you did not know about on them.

You shouldn't get in trouble period because it's your damn body and business.

But if you hang out at Neo-Nazi bars, thats on you.

I should clarify. A person should be free to choose with whom they do and don't associate. Surely you agree with that.

I honestly dont know what you mean with that one.

Private property is good.

Leaving everyone the fuck alone would be fine if we would enforce eachother leaving eachother the fuck alone too.

That's what guns and landmines are for.

Your rights end where mine begin, but that is where right-wingers like to get hypocritical. Why is it ok to harass LGBT people, but not ok to harass people who want to harass LGBT people?

Define 'harass', And that also goes with the freedom of association bit and private property and shooting people who get on it.

It is the constant hypocrisy that really gets me.

With what I've just said, you have to admit I'm consistent here.

Saelune:

Palindromemordnilap:

Leg End:
No, you're saying you like people to pay lip service to you. I prefer something being genuine.

Going to have to stop you there Leg End because if we go back to what Saelune actually said which was:

Saelune:

After that, I don't really care if she was happy about supporting LGBT people as long as her actions did.

Then you'll see that lip service is the exact opposite of what's being asked for. Saelune is sating that if Hillary took action to give equal rights to the LGBT+ crowd then it wouldn't matter if she didn't like doing it, because they still end up with equal rights. Actual action is what is being asked for, not just favourable words. You've either not understood or deliberately misinterpreted whats been said to you

Apparently holding some limp rainbow flag does more for LGBT people than actually fighting for equal rights for LGBT people.

It's like people are just looking at single images or quick soundbites without really looking into anything or thinking for themselves much, isn't it?

Leg End:

Insane people with guns bad.

Yeah but we all have guns so minimal issue there.

"Minimal issue"?

You can set your watch by the latest mass shooting the US. The only western nation where it is a problem.

Leg End:

Saelune:
A government that treats their citizens like their own children to care, protect and raise to be responsible people good. That helps them when down to learn to get up, even if it has to help them up a bunch first.

...The person who should be doing all that is the parent of that person. Government acting like a parent and raising people never turns out good. Ever.

Insane people with guns bad.

Yeah but we all have guns so minimal issue there.

I dont think no one should have guns, I just find those most adamant to have guns usually dont deserve them.

Deserve has nothing to do with it.

Also for us to treat shootings as bad and avoidable, cause they are.

Raising our kids instead of having TV or the Government do it is a good start.

Freedom is a vague term. If you take it literally, then you have The Purge, and I dont want The Purge.

That'd violate the NAP. And that's a stupid movie.

Again, vague. You should not get in trouble for drug possession cause your buddy had some drugs you did not know about on them.

You shouldn't get in trouble period because it's your damn body and business.

But if you hang out at Neo-Nazi bars, thats on you.

I should clarify. A person should be free to choose with whom they do and don't associate. Surely you agree with that.

I honestly dont know what you mean with that one.

Private property is good.

Leaving everyone the fuck alone would be fine if we would enforce eachother leaving eachother the fuck alone too.

That's what guns and landmines are for.

Your rights end where mine begin, but that is where right-wingers like to get hypocritical. Why is it ok to harass LGBT people, but not ok to harass people who want to harass LGBT people?

Define 'harass', And that also goes with the freedom of association bit and private property and shooting people who get on it.

It is the constant hypocrisy that really gets me.

With what I've just said, you have to admit I'm consistent here.

When has a government actually been like a good parent? Like, this is something that the world hasn't even ever actually tried to do.

Shooting a shooter should never be the primary defense against shootings. Again, The Purge is bad.

We arent born with guns in our hands. Gun ownership is not a natural right.

Shame right-wingers dont care about parental rights.

The NAP resitricts freedom then. All rules restrict freedom, and alot of it is good. Rape is a freedom no one deserves to have.

Except all the cases where people fucked up on drugs impair the wellbeing of others. The freedom to consume drugs and alchohol doesnt excuse the freedom to not be killed cause someone was driving under some influence. Your rights end where mine begin.

And they should accept the reprocussions of those associations.

Public property works are a good thing, like parks and libraries and schools. And despite what you think, I am not a communist.

Religious people, usually Christians, seem to think gays marrying impedes their own lives. It doesnt. Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion, but Christians disagree, except when those religions arent christianity. (Islam does the same in Islamic countries, but the US isnt Islamic)

You are not consistent.

Leg End:

Lil devils x:

Yes, it is far from a " simple" world however.

That's what they want you to think. Everyone loves to over-complicate everything.

1) Elaborate on " government bad".

Wait, are we really doing this? Good god, can't a man just hate the government in peace? Government is ass. Smaller the better, none is preferable.

2) What do you propose happen to you if you become too sick or injured to work and you no longer have savings or family to provide for you?

Charity or I just die because if I'm that screwed, I don't want to live anyway. And I'll throw in that I'm a supporter of the Right to Die, if that didn't become obvious.

3) What do you propose happen to you if have no access to earn enough to provide shelter, food, medicine for yourself or your loved ones due to:
a) Natural disaster
b) Man made disaster
c) shifting economy that obsoletes your ability to work or be paid a living income?

See above. And C is rapidly approaching the Automation question and is a thread in of itself. Shelter and food can be done without currency. Natural alternatives for medicine, and the really major stuff isn't going to be covered by insurance or something like the NHS anyway.

4) Should access to resources be only made available to those who can afford them or have the force necessary to take them via force?

Reasonable claim and exploitation of resources, then barter and trade. Not technically answering your question, but I'm stickin to it.

5) Do you think that wealth distributed by unethical or illegal means should be retained by those who " stole" it, or should it be returned to those who were not appropriately paid?

Give a situation as an example? You're roughly speaking of extreme undercompensation and the like, right? Exploitation?

6) Who do you think is responsible for the draining of wealth from communities across the US thus preventing them from reinvesting in their communities and how do you think this should be resolved to make it more sustainable and beneficial to those communities?

Government, and smarter spending after getting bullshit regulation and taxes out of pocket. Monopolies don't just create themselves.

7) Should the government protect endangered species of plants and animals?

No, here's part of why. Privately funded groups can do it better.

8) Should the government protect the people from contaminated soil, air and water?

No, because Flint is still screwed. Government can't be trusted to do anything efficiently or effectively.

9) Should anyone be allowed to purchase firearms?

Yes. I firmly believe in the spirit and the text of the Second Amendment.

10) Should people be allowed to bring firearms into bars, liquor stores, hospitals and other places they have been banned from due to previous issues and continued risks?

Yes, unless the owner of the establishment says otherwise.

Okay limited myself to 10, though there are far too many issues to list here.

Why do you think I just TL;DR it? It's a simple enough concept, usually. Non-Aggression Principle and all that.

Yikes, what year do you think this is? You cannot do without currency for food and shelter in a world where everything is already owned and the rights to shoot anything is pay the person whose property your on in order to hunt there. Without the government involved, all hunting will go to the highest bidder, as Trump has suggested we do already. There is no where you can build a homestead when all the land is bought up by real estate developers. You actually think people should suffer and die because no one will help them? Developers and investors do not want to barter with you, they want cold hard cash. YIKES.

Natural alternatives such as amputation and leeches it is then?

Examples of "stolen wealth"
1) Ordered Pianos from a piano distributor and put down a down payment and agrees to pay for them in full after they arrived. The Piano distributor had to pay the manufacturer to make the pianos by a certain date and make a down payment as well and pay the remainder once the order was filled. Once the pianos come in the guy who ordered them says they look great, but then says, I am not going to pay you the agreed upon amount and has a bunch of guys sit with him at a table and threaten him to accept whatever the guy offers or get nothing at all. In the end, The Piano Distributor not only lost 100% of their commission so they worked for free, but he also went into debt trying to pay the manufacturer the difference between what was owed since he still owed that even though the other guy refused to pay. The guy who ordered the Pianos still keeps his money and the Pianos, continues to spend lavishly on himself during this and afterwards while still refusing to pay others the same way he refused to pay for this. That was how he earned the wealth he has so his behavior has literally impacted thousands of people who are in financial distress for doing business with him.

2)Man opens automotive shop and tells his mechanics he can't pay them because he blew their paychecks gambling at a casino the weekend before or makes up many other excuses over different periods of time as reasons why he cannot pay his mechanics, all the while building up his own wealth buying lavish boats, cars, vacation property. The mechanics are too poor to afford lawyers to take this guy to court and since work is difficult to find they cannot afford to be without a job, even if it doesn't always pay them what they earned so the shop owner keeps all their earned money for themselves.

3)In a small town, local business owners lived there and invested in their communities. They built the parks, playgrounds, charities and helped improved their community overall. They took care of their employees and treated them like family. Then a large business comes in where the owners do not live there and puts all the businesses out of work because they could not compete with the low prices because the large business did not pay to take care of it's employees, but instead those working there had to depend on charity and assistance in order to survive because they were not paid a living wage even by working full time. The wealth of the community is siphoned out through these businesses into he hands of the owners who live far away so there is no longer local funding to maintain the parks and infrastructure as more and more of the community is forced to work for the large business and no longer has expendable income. The less expendable income that becomes available in that community the higher prices the large business charges to maintain profits to keep the business there causing a drastic decline in standard of living for the community as well. In the end due to the large business not paying their employees a fair wage for their work, not only do they suffer, but the community falls into decline due to them removing that wealth from the community to help themselves rather than reinvesting in it.

It is these things that have caused the majority of Americans to fall into decline. The wealthy are who have caused this to happen:
image
The vast majority of the wealthy in the US did not earn their wealth by working hard, they earned it by taking part of what should have been earned by others. With so many hands in the cookie jar now, there isn't enough to provide for the actual people doing the work and they are left in poverty. This is getting worse, not better. In fact The Nasa study showed that this is so severe that it will be the wealthy that cause our civilization to collapse.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

Privately funded groups are powerless to protect endangered species without government enforcement. There is no one to prevent people from killing all the endangered species without the government to actually prevent them from doing so. The primary threat to endangered species in the US is industrialization of government protected lands, if those species lose that protection, the private organizations have no ability to prevent anything from happening to them and are rendered powerless to stop their extermination.

Are you seriously saying that we should allow our resources to go to the highest bidder and let the people die if they cannot afford access to clean water? Scary times indeed. If you thought people selling water for $100 to survive during a hurricane was bad, just wait until they can control all of it. Why do you think people like martin shkreli were able to mark up life saving medication 500%? Just look at what they did with the epi pen as well where if you do not have $500 your kid will die from a bee sting. It is disgusting and ONLY the government can prevent these things from happening.

So you believe ANYONE, including someone who is screaming witches are after them and they need a gun to kill them before they kill them first should be able to legally buy a gun? A guy who has been arrested for shooting places up for shits and giggles? The guy who keeps threatening to kill his ex wife? The guy who just gave their two yr old a gun and had them firing at the doorframe of their house because he was too f'ed on crack to realize this was a bad thing? The guy who just got out on bail for shooting a neighbors horse and cattle while drunk? The idea that anyone should be able to buy a firearm is insane. We need restrictions so that people who are unstable and have proved themselves to be irresponsible do not have access to the ability to easily access them so that we can mitigate the damage they cause. The reality is here, that you cannot stop insane people with guns without actually having a government funded and enforced infrastructure in place to handle it. This includes proper mental health care access or you will not even have the documentation needed to determine whether or not one is "insane" in the first place. That requires a mental health professional to determine who needs to be paid for by the government, as they do not work for free.

You have to actually put people in charge that want to help the people and make these things work. By electing people that actively sabotage programs, you are the actual cause of the programs not working. Other nations elect people who actually make the programs work, that is why this works in other nations. The ONLY thing preventing that from happening in the US is who people elect to oversee these things. Stop electing corrupt, ignorant, greedy goons who only want to "get theirs and screw everyone else" to office and we can start to solve the problem. It is not " government = bad" " small government= good" ,it is "electing people who actively seek to harm the people= bad" and "electing people who want to get the job done right= good." You sort out the two by their actions, yes that means actually keeping up with what the people you elect actually do. If you do not, that is how the current mess of "screwing the people over for personal gain" was allowed to take hold in the first place.

Sometimes you do NEED the government to be involved, otherwise you have no way to actually keep your nation safe. Building a wall does not keep people safe. Most of the deaths of US citizens come from domestic threats, not foreign ones. A good nation takes care of it's people, this includes providing them with a safe, healthy environment free of health hazards and pollution. Failing to do so is failing the people because you are denying them the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness when you deny them access to these very basic things to achieve it.

"The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members"

Leg End:
I don't know how much simpler I can put this.

Government bad.
Authoritarianism bad.
Guns good.
Freedom good.
Freedom of Association good.
Property good.
Leaving everyone the fuck alone good.

I am a simple man.

Look, I like Libertarians. They can have a good head on their shoulders. But you have made this simplisitc. Let's start with 'leaving everyone alone'. If this was possible, it would literally solve most problems in the world. By the way, most Libertarians care about letting everyone do what they want, up until they affect someone else. So, let's take one of the biggest problems currently being discussed at the moment - Climate Change/ Pollution etc. In China, whole cities shut down due to pollution from a variety of industry sources and an abundance of cars. Every companies losses billions due to the extranilities caused by a small portion of businesses. One (or small group) business' Freedom can negatively impact others.

Now, you could say that this probably state run companies. But it happened under a lot of Western countries until governments stepped in. Me personally, I'm not interested in whether a business or government fixes a negative extranality, I care whether its done. If a regulation fixes it, great. If an entrepenuer fixes it, great. You cites a bunch a failures of government, and I can cite a bunch of sucesses. Just as I can cite a bunch of failures of business who serverly impact other negatively.

So, looking at no government and private property situation, just ask Houndarans how that's going at the moment. They currently have little government. Unfortunately, governments enforce your Property Rights, and without that enforcement, you will be shot for your possessions. Hence the high murder rates and large swathes of the population needed as security gaurds. Private Property is virtually non-existent except for the very wealthy. This ties back to the pollution issue, and your understanding of the situation: A company creating pollution has no impetus to change its ways, they should be Free to pollute all they want. If this literally kills people (usually the young and old), that's not the companies fault. I strongly disagree. If you (even unintetionally) murder people, there should be consequences. Now, I would prefer it to be done without government intervention. But looking at another example that might affect your life right now, loot boxes, gives you an understanding of what normally happens. It will progressively get worse becuase there is no reason for a company to listen to its customers.

Currently, guns are being used as an oppressive instrument. They are more used to take away Freedoms than protect them. They are failing their purpose. They are Tyranny, and used by Tyrants. Me personally, I dont think guns are any good at protection and never have. It's a false quality attributed to them, similar to how people think government will provide all the protection they need. (And no, government won't do everything for you.) When those progressive are asking for gun laws, they are asking guns to become a protective instrument, not oppressive. I dont think they are asking for the right laws to do this properly, but I understand their purpose and why. The people asking for gun laws want Freedom. It's just their interpretation of Freedom is different.

At this time, we generally think laws are good. I am assuming you like laws, but feel free to tell me I assumed wrong. If we remove goverment but keeps laws, we'd have to privatise them. Then we'd have a bunch of situations like Sargon/ Patreon but regularly. Constantly. A company decides that an employee isn't doing the right thing and removes them. That company talks to it's friends and bans them from everywhere else. The employee has no Rights other than the ones granted to them by the company so they wont be able to sue or find recourse. Becuase it's not just governments we have to worry about being Authoritarian. It's CEOs, and some will be if they are allowed to make laws. And, as stated with in my discussion about Property Rights, in a non-government world, whoever can enforce their Rights is the only one that has them. Unless you have an army, a company can and would take anything you think is a Right. They would make new Rights for themselves. Becuase there is nothing Limiting them

Limited Government isn't about it's size (although that can be related.) It's limiting its power, what it can do or influence. One influence is Limiting companies negative impacts on the general populace. Without that, companies just replace governments, becoming a Corporate Congress, dictating how we live. And we don't vote them in, so they will be absolute power.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here