TheRealNihilist

And you listed "Irrationality defending your side instead of bringing out rational critiques." as an example of being hypocritical, right?

Irrational comments can be hypocritical if it is inconsistent with their other views but it isn't always the case.

What if I am pro-choice and against the death penalty?

Pro choice is referring to giving women the option to abort a baby.

Does "everyone" include:

criminals?

illegal immigrants?

foreigners?

aliens?

animals?

sub-humans?

insects?

bacteria?

fetuses?

This is why I think people, including myself too since I am guilty of this too, should be careful with words like "everyone" because I'm not sure we would all agree that a cockroach should have the "intrinsic right to life" "the right to bear arms" "the right to free speech" "the right to a free education" and "the right to free healthcare" the same way people do.

Also, when it comes to "rights," it's important to remember that certain rights can be LOST. If a criminal commits a mass murder with a gun, then they lose their second amendment right to bear arms. If someone slanders and defames, then they lose their first amendment right to free speech and are legally penalized. If an unborn baby puts too much burden on it's mother, then it could lose it's "right to life" before it's even born.

Irrationally defending your side isn't hypocritical. It's stupid, yes, but not necessary hypocritical.

I would call that charity.  Taxes are imposed upon people.

So people should have the option of not being taxed even though the government resides over the land?

You either hand over your money, or your wealth is seized, and/or you face some sort of threatening punishment.

I'll tell you. People are giving a portion of their money to the government. The government uses that money in the hopes of what people need. 

Try this, [LINK]

Do you think my most recent post to pirates was sufficient? 

Why would you want people to equate socialist policies to socialism?

I want people to call things what they are. That is my reason. This would be for both of us understanding what we are saying and others reading.

Right, and he is willing to look at it anyway instead of dismissing it out of hand just because it isn't something that a certain group he identfies with (conservatives) might not like on average.

I think he would disagree with it if he knew what it actually means given his lack of questioning with what a socialist policy is or not understanding it is a part of socialism not the entire thing.

Like I said I disagree with the idea personally but what you are saying demonstrates this guy may not have a red-and-blue mentality, which is a good thing.

So yeah. Good for him.

I don't really know the guy at all but just based on what you are saying here it sounds like he doesn't look at the world as black-and-white/red-and-blue but instead examines each idea on it's own merit and doesn't dismiss them out of hand because they might be associated with a word that he dislikes.

Good for him. We need more people like that in democratic societies.

It takes your money, thus making you have to work harder to achieve the same amount.

You told me the effect it has on people.

Okay I think the idea in the OP isn't a good idea and I also happen to be against socialism but I have to point out that this is a really stupid post.

If your reason for disliking a certain idea is that "it sound socialism and socialism bad" then you don't really have a good reason for being against that idea. Show how the actual idea itself is actually bad rather than just dismissing it out of hand because it sounds like something that would be associated with a certain word you dislike.

You're simply having some apparent difficulty communicating your indisputable facts.

Didn't take you long to resort to insults and name calling, typical of you. 

is there a difference between a social policy and a socialist policy?

I think there's a difference between social and socialism

do you honestly believe that "political distribution is owned or regulated by the community as a whole" via government?  is the government "the community"?  

Socialist policy.

A capitalist policy would be abolishing minimum wage. This doesn't mean it the state supports the entirety of capitalism. It just means it supports a policy that more closely aligns to capitalism than socialism.

but this comment doesn't actually refute any of PragerUniversity's actual arguments. Just that one statement about a source. In fact, what PragerU says about the minimum wage is pretty much what I'm saying: that if you raise the minimum wage, it usually leads to certain bad outcomes.

Using a source from 1984 and applying it to today's context is impractical and not helpful. It is like me cherry picking homosexuality being amazing because the Roman did it and they did well. They also appealed to right wingers that left wingers believe this because it is from a left leaning news source. Their entire shtick is persuasion over information. If it was the latter I wouldn't get such a bite-size video that he mentions a 1984 paper to be a reliable source to be used to compare what is going on in 2019. I'll happy debunk PragerU for you in a debate because I feel like that is more worthwhile to me than telling my informative arguments here. Sorry if you wanted me to debunk PragerU here. I simply stated obvious concerns.

Theft?

No. No moral interpretation simply state what they are.

Property taxes.

What are taxes?

I don't believe schools, k-12 is socialism, if you think it is please show us

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/so-all-government-example-socialism

With the $20,000.00 per year per-child funds that are currently being used for public schools.

Distributed to the parents of the children (trickle-up economics).

Are you a nihilist and a conservative?

letting people group together to hire a teacher etc is a socialist policy?

it's their choice, the individuals choice, I don't believe that is socialism, but please, tell me what else I like oh knowledgeable one.

Lol 

Yeah I know you were talking about 100M not 100,000,000M

YEET YEET

U looze

I am winner. 

T-Series currently has 109 million subscribers. 

That is very far off from one hundred million million subscribers

It's basically a truism

Yeah I win.

Actually, both of you are wrong. Neither Pewdiepie nor T-Series has reached 100 million million subs yet, lol.

Debate me. >:(

the majority of people care about the climate changing

If you are referring to reduction in CO2 emissions, I feel as though its probably too late to reduce them.  There are more pressing issues around the world, and they will continue to rise.  

people won't care until they see a real impact on their lives. that's how society often does things.... they wait until it's boiling over before doing anything. 

Anything more positive? :(

What's the difference between earning $0.00 and earning no money at all? There isn't a single job in the world where you earn less than 0.00

Enforcing that rule is wasting money. Working a job with no money with no minimum wage is not enforced by the government. 

George W. Bush was selected to be the president. It's not about "deserving" to win.

His family comes from old banking money, which if one does one's research, funded the Nazi campaign

The atrocities the Bush family is responsible for, particularly the 20th century and early 21st, is quite substantial.

T-Series is a company, not a creator. They produce music videos of other performers, they are a production company and not a creator. 

Debate me.