Total posts: 502
Posted in:
These are valiid concerns. It's about time the age of liberal western democracy ends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Problem is that Milton Friedman takes an entirely materialistic approach to things and assumes that the only other solution is totalitarian communism.
What difference does more plastic BS make, just because it raises the "GDP" or "standard of living?" People are going into debt slavery, Capitalism is capitalizing on the worst traits of people, the masses are being manipulated, power is being concentrated into corporate elites, worship of religion is being replaced with worship of the dollar, and so forth.
Libertarian Capitalists neglect every societal implication caused by late-stage Capitalism and instead focus on its historical growth or material wealth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mister_Man
spread the disgusting culture they had to flee from to begin with.
I wouldn't call Syrian culture disgusting; the migrants are just among the worst among Syrians. Syria was a pretty honorable and stable country under Assad's government, and was among the only places where non-Muslims weren't persecuted. (And thanks neo-cons for ruining it!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Trump is a proto-Caesar or a proto-proto-Caesar at best. What kind of "Caesar" allows for the whole media to slander the type of toothbrush he uses, or for ultra-progressives holding degenerate marches every other day?
I'm talking about a true strong leader that could rise up and potentially undermine the democratic election process. Trump hasn't been extremely effective in doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mister_Man
I don't think it should be mandatory (unless they're drafted), but certainly encouraged. It's a much better alternative than to flee, and thus should be recognized as such. I'm mainly spiting the argument about "muh poor refugees" that the left uses as an emotional appeal to take them in.I however don't necessarily agree that the refugees should be required to fight for their country. I agree that it's selfish and cowardly not to, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I definitely would, as I love my country and would die to protect it, but I don't think that should be mandatory. However because not every country can accommodate them, it should be strongly recommended or pay out a big reward.
Created:
Posted in:
American Democracy, in its current state, is corrupted. The institution itself was fragile, and bound to collapse at some point. Various founding fathers such as John Adams believed that democracy would never last for a long time.
America is showing signs of structural weakness and poor governance. Candidates and politicians are corrupted and self-serving, lobbyism influences politics more than public opinion, there's a political gridlock, the two party system, and so forth.
This is quite analogous to the late Roman Republic. Eventually, the crumbling Republican system was replaced by despotism. But was it a bad thing? Julius Caesar introduced various reforms to improve Rome and its poorer classes, while the Senate was full of corrupt and greedy oligarchs, of whom were unwilling to do anything and keep a gridlock of instability.
Is this event in history analogous to America? Should we declare Democracy expired, or can it be saved? What are your opinions on a sort of neo-Caesarism that may eventually rise with growingly authoritarian-populist leaders in the western world?
Created:
Posted in:
Aren't you Emilrose?Promiscuity is wrong, regardless of the age of the person or the person(s) who they decide to have sex with. The women who you have referenced should have found a husband, settled, and had children, whilst the men who you have alluded to ought to develop some self-control and place more value on love and commitment, as opposed to exclusively prioritizing sex.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok. Selfish isn't necessarily bad. We all have to take care of ourselves and our families at some level.
Selflessness is the basis of civilization. We may have personal interests, but our lives and safety were granted to us by broader society. It is without doubt that we should take care of ourselves and direct friends or family, but what is also required is the need to take care of civilization.
You presume that people owe a country loyalty by default. I do not agree with that assumption.
A healthy and stable country is one with loyal citizens that take care of it whenever it's "sick." If a country's people aren't loyal, then it will be more prone to collapse and instability. To the contrary, a country with loyal patriots will survive times of chaos as its citizens will help restore law and order.
On the individual level, your country is what provided you with what you know. If it be your friends, neighbors, literacy, education, luxuries, or so on. You should therefore be loyal to your country for the fruits of civiliized society it provided you with.
And why is that bad and what does that have to do with honor?
Because they are leaving their countrymen to suffer. I view it as immoral to leave your neighbors to suffer under the brutality of a war, when you have the potential to contribute towards helping them in some sort of way. Selflessness is a virtue.
The Syrian man who embarks on an expedition to Germany could have potentially show down a terrorist controlled tank heading towards a hospital.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Alright, maybe I'm going a little off topic here. My main point is that fleeing from a war when you are capable of assisting, whether it be in the government, command, battlefield, or so on, is a selfish pursuit. Staying there and helping Syria restore itself is a selfless pursuit where you are honoring loyalty to your countrymen by wanting to help better their condition.
Therefore, the young men that are "refugees" are pursuing selfish interests. They abandoned their countrymen when they have the potential to help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No. I see no obligation for anyone to fight in any war. Did they take any oath? Make a promise? If not, then they have no obligation to stay, fight, and die for any government.
Your perspective isn't on lines with nationalism.
I advovate for nationalism, and I therefore believe it is beneficial for a people to be subject to their nation rather than to their self interests. To flee the war (unless they're incapable of helping, such as the elderly or children) when they can assist means that their loyalties are not with the nation and that they are acting in self interest.
It is healthier for a nation to practice nationalism, as it unites its people. Instead of fleeing, they will have loyalty to one another and help their countrymen in times of war.
If the nation doesn't practice nationalism, the people are disunited and serve their self interest which is undesirable for a nation's society as it would allow for more instability, selfishness, and hedonism based on pursuing their self interests 100% rather than assisting the nation's interests when necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
Why does someone automatically become obligated into a war just because they were born into the country hosting the war? Moreover, why are they obligated to fight for a certain side, considering that many Syrians are split over who to support?
1. Most Syrians support the Syrian Government (Assad's regime).
2. I advocate for nationalism. People living in a nation are subject to it, and should be willing to fight for it in times of chaos. If they are patriotic Syrians that support their homeland, they should be fighting for it. From what's happened, the Syrian "refugees" are partaking in self interest and failing to even assimilate into the countries they fled to. If they're going to act Syrian in western Europe, why not go back to Syria and help?
Created:
Posted in:
Adding to what Drafterman said, I don't think many Syrian citizens were asking for a multi-sided war involving a totalitarian government, Islamist terrorists, the US and NATO, and Russia. Why expect them to fight a war in which they support no side winning, where all sides involved seem to deal with their lives with total disregard?
What's "totalitarian" to liberal westerners is the best solution to the eyes of a Syrian. The vast majority of Syrians are in favor of Assad's government, and his government is representing the native Syrian people's interests. The Syrian government deals with the lives of loyal Syrians in the best regard. There may be brutal acts on all ends, but war is seldom without brutality.
At the end of the day, it's Assad's regime that most Syrians support and would fight for. So, why not go and support the government to bring order back to Syria?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ravensjt
How exactly is it ethnic prejudice? I am not belitting the suffering; I am simply saying they should work to end their suffering in an act of unselfishness.
It isn't racism or prejudice at all. It is simply the belief in nationalism, that people are subject to their nation and should be willing to serve it in times of crisis. Don't subsitute the race card for real logic and argumentation.
And to your last point: if you are in shape, you should honor the call the war. A young, fit, and physically able man that crosses deserts, swims through treachorous seas, and dodges border security, should be spending that energy on the battlefield or in some way to help their nation and countrymen.
Created:
Posted in:
When the left advocates for importing numerous amounts of refugees, I see a major cause for as to why they advocate for it and others don't.
Besides the fact that many of these people aren't actual refugees... Let's assume they are for a second.
Most "refugees" are young, fit, and healthy men. By chosing to migrate, they are betraying their honor as treason to their nation. Rather than joining the Syrian army or assisting in the war any way they can to support their country, they chose to escape the conflict.
A liberal will not view this as a problem, because they don't hold nationalism to the same extent as others - especially on the right.
From a more nationalist and conservative perspective, these people have a nation to defend. If they are capable of assisting in some way, they should do so. It's an insult to their honor and nation to abandon it and their countrymen in times of conflict.
Though onto a broader and more philosophical subject, should this be the case? Should young and fit people capable of serving the nation in the army, or some other way, do so in times of conflict? Is it a selfish pursuit to escape their home to simply get away from war?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
People who act like antifa are as bad as fascists enable fascists.
aNTiFA r dUH rEEL Fa$ShiEscts!!1111!!11!!111one1!
Created:
-->
@Castin
I wasn't quite sure if you were making a case against it or were reasoning as to why he might not have included it, so my bad.
Oh well, guess it's not being added (Thanks Putin!)
Created:
Anyways, I talked to the creator (forgot his name) of the website about this. He claimed that Russia's government suppresses Fascism and doing so would get him into trouble. I have doubts about that, but that's understandable. I don't want him to get in legal trouble.
As of now, I'll simply use the "About me" or whatever to indicate my ideology.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I get where you're coming from. And by raw kill count, communism beats fascism. But this is how I see it:
Yes, that's how YOU see it. You're a progressive, and by nature you would see "radical left" ideology as preferrable to "radical right" ideology. Excluding an ideology based on your feelings towards it is not a legitimate argument. As a fascist, I see Progressivism and Communism as the worst of ideologies. Does that mean I believe it should be excluded? No.
Communism is a much larger and more varied overarching ideology with many more branches and forms, all of varying degrees of merit, some of which even have opposing ideas.
No it isn't. You simply know more about communism than Fascism, and can spot more differences between variants based on your left wing worldview. There's many different types of Fascism such as Integralism, Falagnism, Classical, Clerical, etc.
Anyways, I don't want to derail this thread into a defense of Fascism - that's what the politics forum is for.
While communist regimes have often become monstrous, communism as an ideology originally focused on the values of equality, liberation for the working class, and sharing without discrimination. Fascism focused on the values of totalitarian power and fanatic nationalism.There are over 1 billion communists in the world today. How many fascists are there? Policy decisions are based on how many people can be a pain in the ass for you right now.Again, just how I see it. I have no idea what Michael's reasons are. Maybe you could ask him to replace the dropdown list with a blank input field we can type anything into. Although that would probably lead to a lot of users with ideologies like "bewbs" and "420".
Yeah, that's how you see it. Your argument supports the exclusion of Fascism based on your personal feelings towards it. That's not a valid argument.
Anyways, I do believe that a custom input field for an ideology is a good idea. Trolling can happen anywhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Good post.
Before we do appoint mods though, I think a formal rule system of some sort should come first...
Created:
Posted in:
Why do they bother? Their cash cow is inflated in value from spammers. Greedy corporate shills.
Created:
Posted in:
Some people are still active and posting though... You think shilling for people to migrate here had something to do with the bans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Can we please just ban this dude?
Created:
Posted in:
Abortion opponents do consider abortion as taking a life, sure. I disagree with that, but there's something more pressing--and somewhat disturbing--in your case I want to take up. Abortion historically was permissible until as late as the quickening, and many major religions have nuanced, diverse, and conflicting views on the issue, within the religions themselves (1).
Historically, technology for abortion did not exist. However, it existed in another form - infantcide. The two are more closely related than pro-abortionists would claim them to be, as the only difference is that the baby is in the womb and is slightly less developed.
Infantcide was common in the entire world, with its rate being up to 50% in hunter-gatherer or nomadic societies. Civilization reduced its rate, but didn't prevent it. For the case of Europe, infantcide was permitted with no reprecussion under Roman law. Only until the Empire converted to Christianity was there legislation to prohibit the practice and punish partakers.
So, you can thank those Abrahamic faiths for valuing the gift of life as to oppose its unjust violation as the case of abortion.
How can you possibly justify the death penalty for abortion? Murder is different--it is an act more or less universally condemned. Discussions of the DP itself aside (though obviously how you justify use of the DP matters to this discussion, and feel free to add that), abortion is an issue surrounded by extreme moral uncertainty. That is, you cannot possibly know when morally significant life begins, because when it begins is subject to what you argue constitutes morally significant.
It isn't moral uncertainty from the conservative or religious perspective. For they, definitely, declare life to begin at conception. As to why it is a moral uncertainty is due to the devaluation of life caused by secularism - which introduced widespread abortion programs and practices under eugenics programs. Eugenics might be (partially) gone, but socially based abortion is still abortion.
From our perspective, it is the same argument of the 4th century Roman Empire with regards to infantcide. Our opponents may not see abortion as murder, because they justify it as a "moral uncertainty." It is not. Rather, it is a justification to value hedonism of a woman over the value of life. The convenient benefits of abortion delude people to re-define life.
This difference, as I mentioned, is analogous to the Roman-Christian perspective that believed infantcide is a bad thing while the Roman-Pagan perspective believed infantcide to not be an issue as their worldview didn't value life. In other words, pro-abortionists place less value on life than anti-abortionists.
Even defining "life" by itself is a headache and a half. Life as scientifically defined so far can't give a definitive answer; it's a description of things we've observed that signify an individual life, and it faces immense controversy (2). One possible answer is to say that all life is morally significant. Bacteria clearly aren't, so you could refine that to say "all human life". But then we're just begging the question: what is life, and furthermore, what does it mean to be human? Is a clump of human cells "human life"? And if you cede that life does not begin at conception, where can you possibly draw the line? There's a general range of times people believe acceptable--late-term is generally considered life, for instance--but can you pin down the exact point at which abortion stops ending a pregnancy and starts ending a life?
Is a clump of human cells with human organs, a functioning brain, a human-like body, a heart, blood, etc. You can't make the case of "drawing the barrier," because anti-abortionists have drawn the layer with a chisel-thick Sharpie. The barrier is conception.
Based on the view of considering a fetus to be life, and the advocation of the death penalty for murder, I do boldly claim that the punishment for abortion must be death. The only exceptions could include life in danger or rape (even so, a C-section is a potential alternative).
Created:
There exists such a polarization of modern politics that the left and right wing are divided by subculture. Therefore, no, in this day and age such can not occur and manifest as a long term relationship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Maybe not Nazism, but if you're going to include the ideology of Pol "Crush Baby skulls for Fertilizer" Pot, why is Fascism so big and scary to add?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
How are you suppoorting any specific ideology to include it? Your feelings toward an ideology don't matter, it's still legitimate and deserves a place in an ideology drop-down.
Is DebateArt supporting Communism to include it in an ideological drop down? That same logic would apply.
Fascism may have bad associations, but this is a debate website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Why not?
Communism is added as a political ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I don't quite get why they're staying there either. Does DebateArt not have enough legitimacy...? Do they not trust a new "leader?" I don't know...
I wonder what airmax's views are on this. I don't recall him ever stating anything about DebateArt.com, other than a brief mention with a neutral tone. If he does support this exodus, I think we should give him his throne as a head moderator on here.
Created:
Posted in:
Besides, with active moderation... You don't have morons and unfunny trolls on DA as you do on DDO. (Looking at you, RMTheSupreme, TrumpSupporter, and TheClitMoves).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Looks like there's some people on DDO that still insist on staying.
Though it seems like it's a small minority of older members. DDO is broken as a website, even if there isn't spam. It's extremely glitchy, and basic features cease to function at many times. Development is stagnant, but is growing here.
I think I'm going to stay here, f*ck Debate.org and f*ck those corporate b*stards "Juggle."
Let the Schism commence
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
But it is completely dead.
Why are we sucking up to Juggle's TOS anyways? They're a bunch of b*stards that bought out DDO only to ruin it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I literally explained how Fascism is an umbrella term, at least on the economuc scale.
Your post was a big (my definition is right; your definition is wrong) as a substitution for an argument. My claims still stand, unaddressed.
Created:
-->
@JusticeWept
Convince me against Classical Fascism
Created:
Posted in:
Pretty much any charismatic dictator that rose to power through popular support has had good orating skills.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What problem would that create? How would it de-incentivize?
Created:
Posted in:
Someone with a lot of people on their friends lists should just send a mass PM.
I have 300 I think, so I'll try and do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JusticeWept
Separation of Church and State was a mistake, and it was never successfully implemented anyways (until recent times with the rise of secularism)A) how this relates your ideas about separation of church and state
B) your thoughts about abortion law when its illegality is ineffectively enforced and causes deaths
It causes deaths to those who engage in what those opposed to abortion consider to be causing murder themselves? I don't think that's an incentive to support abortion law at all. As one opposed to abortion, I believe abortion should warrant death to the mother themselves (with the exception of rape and life in danger).
Created:
Posted in:
And yes, Stalin was a social conservative. He is not as left wing as people realize, as he could accurately be described as a Nazbol based on his social conservatism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
You act as if you read one book by gentile and now u derstand absolutely everything about all forms of Fascism.
Yes, it is true that Gentile was anti-Capitalist. His economic system was more closely resembling of Socialism. That being said, it does have its variances. Gentile and various Fascists did not necessarily oppose a social hierarchy in general, and desired to correct various flaws of socialism.
Even so, Gentile's economic ideals were more implemented in Syndicalism-based Fascism such as that of Fascist Spain. Fascist Italy went with a more Capitalistic variant - Corporatism.
Moreover, it is not mere national identity I am referring to but various other parts of Fascism. Fascists have called for socially conservative values, a key basis of their ideology which would make it difficult for Fascism to be left wing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
What do we have in common with Socialists other than being "radical" and outside of "mainstream politics?" And what do you define as Identitarianism? I support American Nationalism and an American Identity, as should any American.
We are shooting ourselves in the foot to back contemporary Republicans, but we'd be shootung ourselves twice to back Democrats. Also, the objective here is to "reform" the mainstream right wing - not become outcasts.
And nice insults. I too can play at that game: https://i.imgur.com/juZA36X.jpg
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
fAsHescIES R dUH REeL LeFTiSts huRrRRr dUR
What you're referring to is Classical Liberalism. Liberal has changed in definition.
But anyways, what about Fascism is left wing?
According to Wikipedia:
"Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition."
Fascism sounds pretty right wing by this definition... And ask any fascist, the majority of us would rather associate with the Right Wing more than the Left Wing.
Created:
Posted in:
Maybe you should realize you'v been brainwashed into believing somehow Facism is right wing. When Facism is:
dUuRR, LiBERALS r the REeL fAsheSies, amirite?
Created:
Posted in:
The reason Debate.org was popular can be accredited to SEO. Any way we can do this for DebateArt?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
"Dictatorship" is a form of government, while Fascism is an actual political ideology.
I'd also suggest: Progressivism and National Socialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Can yoy also add more political ideologies? Including fascism
Created: