User Tag List

First 91718192021 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 205

  1. #181
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Simulated. Where's the beef?

    Where is the substance of your argument?

    What is your overall point?

    I'm saying that while rights have value, there will necessarily arise situations in life where someone's right will be trampled because someone else's right is judged to take greater precedence. Members of the American Libertarian Party tend to get incensed whenever this happens to them (especially involving taxes) and insist that they're being somehow singled out for unfair treatment, when in reality they're just going through the same shit everyone else goes through--sometimes your rights trump someone else's, and sometimes theirs trump yours. That's what happens when you have to deal with different people's interpretations of the same concepts.

    It doesn't by any means mean that "rights are unimportant" or "rights don't exist" or any of the other nonsense you seem intent on shoving into my mouth; it just means that there will invariably be situations in life where your right to something is deemed less important than someone else's right that conflicts with yours, and that this is just a normal part of life that Members of the American Libertarian Party would do well to just grow up and deal with.
    If what I bolded is your point (which is the only actual relevant point you made in your response).
    What is the problem with someone's rights taking precedence?

    Why would libertarians be bothered by this?

    In my little hypothetical situation, I laid out circumstances that pretty much all libertarians would agree with. And in that hypo, one person's rights were subjugated to someone elses.

    How is this relevant to the platform of Libertarians (about which reasonable minds can differ)?

    Libertarians generally value freedom and lack of intervention by the gov't.

    I fail to see how being libertarian automatically makes you a hypocrite when it comes to rights?

    Do you have an argument or are you just frustrated that some people on this forum happen to be hypocrites?

    So given that, why would you bother to point this out when it's obvious that I actually am providing an argument? Is it because you "merely want to make me look like an ass"? Which would make you a hypocrite for complaining that I'm doing it?
    Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

  2. #182
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Simulated. Where's the beef?

    Where is the substance of your argument?

    What is your overall point?



    If what I bolded is your point (which is the only actual relevant point you made in your response).
    What is the problem with someone's rights taking precedence?

    Why would libertarians be bothered by this?

    In my little hypothetical situation, I laid out circumstances that pretty much all libertarians would agree with. And in that hypo, one person's rights were subjugated to someone elses.

    How is this relevant to the platform of Libertarians (about which reasonable minds can differ)?

    Libertarians generally value freedom and lack of intervention by the gov't.

    I fail to see how being libertarian automatically makes you a hypocrite when it comes to rights?

    Do you have an argument or are you just frustrated that some people on this forum happen to be hypocrites?
    It's not being generally libertarian in terms of personal philosophy that's the problem, just the inability to recognize situations where your principles have practical limitations and do not apply.

    Anyone, not just libertarians, is guilty of this if he holds that any principle is 100% true in 100% of situations. As you said yourself, the world doesn't operate in black and white terms. You may typically have a right to x in most situations, but lose that right in another situation where it conflicts with right y of someone else's.

    If you support everything in the American LP platform, you oppose redistribution of wealth on principle and refuse to support any of it regardless of any external conditions. This is a mistake because it assumes an absolute and unconditional truth arbitrarily, and refuses to consider conditions where another principle might prove more important.

    Quote Originally Posted by you
    Why would libertarians be bothered by this?
    I don't know. Why do they still complain that they're being unfairly violated every time the government taxes them more than their arbitrary absolutist principles are comfortable with?

    Everything is too situational for any such steadfast rules to apply consistently.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #183
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It's not being generally libertarian in terms of personal philosophy that's the problem, just the inability to recognize situations where your principles have practical limitations and do not apply.

    Anyone, not just libertarians, is guilty of this if he holds that any principle is 100% true in 100% of situations. As you said yourself, the world doesn't operate in black and white terms. You may typically have a right to x in most situations, but lose that right in another situation where it conflicts with right y of someone else's.

    If you support everything in the American LP platform, you oppose redistribution of wealth on principle and refuse to support any of it regardless of any external conditions. This is a mistake because it assumes an absolute and unconditional truth arbitrarily, and refuses to consider conditions where another principle might prove more important.

    Everything is too situational for any such steadfast rules to apply consistently.
    Your argument functions on the assumption that all libertarians hold 100% to the LP platform.

    We are individuals just like you. Who differ about etc. etc.

    From your post that I responded to originally, it seemed as if you were indicting all libertarians.

    No rational man believes the answer is all the way to the left or the right.

    Truth is generally found in between the extremes.

    I don't assume that all democrats are communist, sierra club, Pelosi acolytes.

    Not all Libertarians are ruby ridge survivalists.

    I don't know. Why do they still complain that they're being unfairly violated every time the government taxes them more than their arbitrary absolutist principles are comfortable with?
    Because that money is generally wasted in Gov't hands. The gov't generally has no incentive to run anything well because they don't make money proportional to how well run the service is.

  4. #184
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Your argument functions on the assumption that all libertarians hold 100% to the LP platform.
    No it doesn't. I was merely critiquing the idea that all redistribution of wealth is automatically wrong. Merc stated he believes this, despite not adhering to the entire LP platform.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We are individuals just like you. Who differ about etc. etc.
    Yes, and this section of my argument was directed at Merc's stated belief that redistribution of wealth is never justified because his right to private property takes precedence unconditionally.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    From your post that I responded to originally, it seemed as if you were indicting all libertarians.

    No rational man believes the answer is all the way to the left or the right.

    Truth is generally found in between the extremes.

    I don't assume that all democrats are communist, sierra club, Pelosi acolytes.

    Not all Libertarians are ruby ridge survivalists.
    Fair point. But if one identifies himself as a Libertarian with a capital L, as Merc has pointed out for us, that implies membership in the Libertarian Party, which implies support for the LP platform.

    The idea of "libertarianism" as a whole is too big to critique or even discuss meaningfully in one conversation. Numerous different conflicting philosophies lay claim to that title; I was simply dissecting the most popular one in America today (which would be the LP) and the related belief (which Merc explicitly stated he adheres to) that redistribution of wealth is unconditionally wrong.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #185
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    No it doesn't. I was merely critiquing the idea that all redistribution of wealth is automatically wrong. Merc stated he believes this, despite not adhering to the entire LP platform.
    Its not wrong as long as it only goes so far as to give everyone an equal footing. Most redistribution legislation these days has loopholes wherein those who don't deserve it can receive taxpayer dollars. The welfare system is exploited for funds often enough that the way welfare works these days frustrates the original purpose of the legislation.

  6. #186
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    You can't speak impersonally about articles of faith. Economic models are tied to political ideology, which these Ns have embraced with a True Believer's zeal... and you can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place.

    Instead of exchanging ideas, they're now looking for any reason they can find that shows that you're wrong. Debate on the Internet is a mug's game.
    But...this is exactly what Pure Mercury is doing...his economic models are tied to his own libertarian ideology, and he has embraced it with a True Believer's zeal. And we can't reason Merc out of a position that he wasn't reasoned into in the first place. Instead of exchanging ideas, Pure Mercuy is now looking for any way to insult, berate, nit-pick, and otherwise ad hominem off-topic attack his opponents while frequently just chanting the mantra, "I'm right, you're wrong."

    Debate on the Internet is a mug's game, I'll agree, but I'd also like to point out the hypocrisy in your post is laughably astounding.

  7. #187
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Its not wrong as long as it only goes so far as to give everyone an equal footing. Most redistribution legislation these days has loopholes wherein those who don't deserve it can receive taxpayer dollars. The welfare system is exploited for funds often enough that the way welfare works these days frustrates the original purpose of the legislation.
    People seem to miss that increased poverty = increased crime and chaos. And if your response is that "well, we could just put them in jail" that's going to cost tax dollars too. The entirety of society will function less well with more ignorant impoverished people. So it's going to adversely affect you too, in the long run, no matter how secure you imagine yourself to be.

    We aren't just bleeding hearts, you know. There's a ton of common sense of helping others to help one's self.

  8. #188
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    But...this is exactly what Pure Mercury is doing...his economic models are tied to his own libertarian ideology, and he has embraced it with a True Believer's zeal. And we can't reason Merc out of a position that he wasn't reasoned into in the first place. Instead of exchanging ideas, Pure Mercuy is now looking for any way to insult, berate, nit-pick, and otherwise ad hominem off-topic attack his opponents while frequently just chanting the mantra, "I'm right, you're wrong."
    This is an ironic post.

    You could replace "Pure Mercury" with your name and then add a comment about using "friends" as sources.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #189
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    People seem to miss that increased poverty = increased crime and chaos. And if your response is that "well, we could just put them in jail" that's going to cost tax dollars too. The entirety of society will function less well with more ignorant impoverished people. So it's going to adversely affect you too, in the long run, no matter how secure you imagine yourself to be.

    We aren't just bleeding hearts, you know. There's a ton of common sense of helping others to help one's self.
    Yea poverty is indicative of crime rate. And you know what, if we didn't waste as much money as the gov't does on everything, there just might be more $ rolling through the economy to alleviate poverty.

    Welfare doesn't end poverty, it just makes it less painful, and makes those who receive it complacent in their ongoing ability to rely on the gov't for everything.

  10. #190
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    This is an ironic post.

    You could replace "Pure Mercury" with your name and then add a comment about using "friends" as sources.
    Oh, so I can't give him a taste of his own medicine?

    As for you, I wouldn't be so haughty to speak with superiority if I were you after I observed you in another thread about race ignorantly mistaking dialect for "stupidity" then further embarrassing yourself by declaring that a person from another country wouldn't understand about differences in dialect.

    You're a pseudo-intellectual if I've ever met one. Pot meet kettle.

    P.S. citing professors with PhDs who are experts in their field just isn't quite the same as using "friends" as sources.

Similar Threads

  1. Why are NT's so rare as the main characters?
    By great_bay in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-16-2017, 01:51 AM
  2. [sx] Why are sx-doms so common in typology communities?
    By Octavarium in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 03-11-2015, 10:08 PM
  3. So, Why Are You Up So Early/Late?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 03:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO