Total posts: 14,582
-->
@fauxlaw
Show me the country that began by socialism.
Every country began by socialism.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In practice, It's actually going to take something noticeably drastic like re-engineering the Human DNA or submitting to an AI overlord for your vision to happen.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, the best of man's political alignment is to no longer need politics nor government to act properly.
Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos
Those with foreknowledge
Are the flowers of the Tao
And the beginning of ignorance
Therefore the great person:
Abides in substance, and does not dwell on the thin shell
Abides in the real, and does not dwell on the flower
Created:
-->
@Athias
You can have for example, "Democrats," "The Naderists" and "the Green Party," despite their differences being inconsequentially nuanced.
DEMOCRAT = PRO CORPORATE MOBSTERS
NADERIST = ANTI-CORPORATE MOBSTERS
GREEN = GREENPEACE PETA TERRORISTS
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
A liberal is someone who is liberal with someone else's money.
A "classical liberal" is someone who believes people should be able to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies on their own property.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you believe a government should enforce "love thy neighbor"?If people don't individually choose to love their neighbor, what makes you think they then magically have the capacity to create an overreaching oligarchy that can?If you go down that road, the only proper governance of man to compensate for the "human condition" can only come from AI.
So, would you call yourself an "ANARCHIST"?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Government is not the answer.
So, would you call yourself an "ANARCHIST"?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
my measuring stick is the Sermon on the Mount
Do you believe a government should enforce "love thy neighbor"?
Or do you believe each person should voluntarily "love thy neighbor"?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
END PRIMARY ELECTIONS.How does this work?
Instead of letting the parties pre-select the candidates for the general election, use RCV in the general election and let all the candidates who would normally only run in the primary elections participate in the general election.
PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE A SCAM.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think that objective facts - such as the fact that the earth exists - are separate from any sort of morality.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This has literally nothing to do with that.
Even if you were magically able to identify an "objective fact", you'd still be absolutely nowhere near any hypothetical "objective morality".
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not suggesting this particular chart is (magically) "OBJECTIVE".
What I'm asking you for is a BETTER chart.
What do you personally believe is the most accurate measure of your political beliefs?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I would argue that there is a distinction - you are correct that "objective" things are technically dependent on internal reasoning; however, if you were to go off the preponderance of evidence our senses are accurate more times than they are not. Therefore it would be reasonable to presume there to be a physical universe with things as we observe them.
AND YOU CAN'T GET AN "OUGHT" FROM AN "IS" (HUME'S GUILLOTINE).
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Even in the military, a private telling an officer on a comm to bring in air support is a perfectly intelligible command.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I've found several, one of which I recently linked to. I can tell you others if you'd like but I predict you'll say they're all inferior due to confirmation bias
The test you seem to prefer scores us identically.
And yet, we do not seem to have identical political beliefs.
This highlights a shocking lack of precision.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
This polticalcompass begins its test, and continues through many questions that allegedly innocently, just like most media political polls, does not have unbiased questions.
Please let me know if you find a better test.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The best test of one's political alignment is a free and fair election.
IMPLEMENT AUTOMATIC REDISTRICTING.
END PRIMARY ELECTIONS.
WE MUST DEMAND RCV.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a good easy, rough test of ideology when there are no mainstream candidates to vote on.
Yep.
If anyone finds a better one, please let me know.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I don't buy that the left is all liberal anymore.
Biden is actually to the right of Trump on the chart. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I’m curious to know about Taoism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
so what chance a moral and legal system, above and separate from instinctive social behaviour.
That might seem slightly redundant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And hierarchical social structure is an inherent social principle, as apparent in human society as it is in animal societies....Once again, nothing to do with right or wrong or morality.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
3RU7AL probably considers lying immoral (bad/wrong) even if it would save a persons life.The thing is morality is the distinction between right and wrong, not what is right or wrong (It’s situational).
Deontological ethics does not necessarily mean all lying is bad-wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
When God actualized THIS world, He endowed His creatures with free will.
NOTHING CAN CONTRADICT GOD'S PLAN.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT HUMANS SOMEHOW OUTWITTED AN OMNISCIENT GOD?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) you stick with your "shadow" analogy (THEN) whoever made "light" also made "shadow" at the exact same time.Who made light?
THE "OMNISCIENT" "OMNIPOTENT" "CREATOR".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know if I can, but that shouldn’t be necessary unless your a nihilist.
What's the point of claiming, "morality is objective" if you can't explain it to anyone?
Isn't that exactly the same as saying, "follow your conscience"??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can hold someone legally culpable for not doing a physical action, or I suppose that not feeding your children just isn't wrong? Because that's the logical conclusion that your argument leads to, if someone could never be responsible for something they didn't do, then I suppose its fine to not feed your children, or provide them doctor appointments or anything of the sorts.
Great example.
(IFF) A PERSON'S LEGAL OBLIGATIONS ARE FULFILLED (THEN) NO OTHER ACTION CAN BE REQUIRED
Do you agree or disagree with this conditional statement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Please provide an example of something you believe is objective.Morality
Please teach me how to quantify morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Please present an actual argument against an actual policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain
Who specifically is suggesting we eliminate these specific things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Economic libertartianism isn't good, but not for the reasons you listed.
It worked out quite nicely for J. D. Rockefeller.
Wouldn't it really boost the corporate profit margins if you could simply pay your employees in carnival tokens? [FOR EXAMPLE]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The American government budget is more than all 3rd world nations combined, and there's a "minimal" welfare state?
Are you including military and prison spending in your ad hoc "welfare state" calculation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it.
Have you ever heard of tulips?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You are delusional if you believe America does not have a lot of CORPORATE welfare programs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Please present an actual argument against an actual policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What if god directly contacted you and proved they were god
So, basically GNOSTICISM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
They have privledge granted by their roles in the judicial process.They don't determine things such as intent so much as they try to discern intent.
It still sounds like magic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
all mental processes are physical process, there is no meaningful difference.
You can't hold someone morally or legally culpable for a purely mental process.
You CAN hold someone morally or legally culpable for a purely physical action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again, it is relevant, as I said last time, your claim that it was an ad hominem was irrelevant the "ad hominem" itself was relevant.
You might be able to say that you suspect that I'm being insincere (which is a comment on your own mental state, not mine).
Or you could ask me if I'm being insincere.
However, insisting that my insincerity is a fact is quite simply beyond your epistemological limits and also a textbook ad hominem attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't care for red herrings, address the issue at hand.
Feel free to paraphrase what you believe my argument is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
choosing to not do something is an action into itself.
CHOOSING IS A PURELY MENTAL PROCESS.
ACTING IS A PURELY PHYSICAL PROCESS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
relevant because it accurately describes your behavior
My sincerity is beyond your epistemological limits.
AND if it had nothing to do with the conversation, WHY MENTION IT?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
you have copied my response and pasted it back, explain what it demonstrates.
Please be slightly more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes.. the name is slightly off base; however its inference is still accurate, and your citation does not change that - next - we are talking about a basis of reasonability which this does not address. You have not addressed the central point of my objection curious.
I have no idea which snippet this comment is in reference to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t consider anything a perfect fact.
No, I’m suggesting that by definition objective things don’t require a mind for its existence and facts are objective. I don’t know why you’re disputing this by definition I’m correct
I don’t consider anything a perfect fact.
Please provide an example of something you believe is objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Please present what you consider a perfect fact.I don’t consider anything a perfect fact.
Are you suggesting that everything we can possibly speak about is strictly OPINION?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Don't forget the REAL trolley problem,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Prove that claim.If you were to choose to not do something, then it is comparable to asserting that something is not.
CHOOSING =/= ACTING
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can not assault others:You are being attacked and will die if you do not defend yourself, therefore you have the right to defend yourself with assault. Exceptions are not only preferable they are NECESSARY
This is not an exception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
AD HOMINEM ATTACK.If that attack is not used to justify the belief or disbelief of a proposition then I could care less. It is not relevant.
Argument to the Man, Argumentum ad Hominem
When the speaker, instead of addressing the issues at hand, chooses to discuss the personal nature of his opponent [**]
If you don't think accusing me of insincerity is "relevant" then why do you mention it?
Created: