You do seem to have a problem with almost everyone who disagrees with you, though. There are certain things in the world that aren't absolutes, and this means that people with logical integrity should be able to admit the possibility of being wrong despite not agreeing with them. Every world view is flawed, and every political ideology is irrational and arbitrary at its core, but i always get the feeling that you believe your libertarian ideology is fool-proof and the most ideal system known.

Only empirical science can attempt to give us an objective perspective on issues that make an ideal society (philosophers of science can tell you why), but only when it's free of all biases and done ideally. Logical integrity also means readiness to change your world view according to what is the best kind of knowledge we have. If all studies would hypothetically but certainly link libertarian policies to detrimental societal effects, would you blame the studies, libertarianism, or human nature?

Do you think your world view could be wrong without you realizing it? Are you open to this option?

This post was edited by Neptunus on May 22 2019 08:07am

even tho I know exactly how this ends already

I'm explicitly open to honest criticism and regularly encourage people to make merit based arguments against my positions instead of ignoring it and making personal attacks or making calls to violently shut down debate.

Nowhere have I suggested that my views are perfect.

Having a problem with some people who "disagree" with me and are supportive of violence against me and others is totally normal and does not imply i think i'm perfect, nor should i not have a problem with them.

Here instead of admitting the obvious truth of my arguments you attack a strawman created in your imagination.

who here is supportive of violence against you?

I didn't create a strawman because I didn't attack anything and didn't even have the intention in case you took it as such. Asking honest questions about how you view yourself is a good check point and is nothing that you should take personally on any level. Which actually makes me wonder, why do you think it's an attack? It's sometimes relevant to know who you are talking to, and it's not really an ad hominem argument because pure rationality exists only in our imaginations. In the real world you must also account for the irrational aspects of human behavior, it's the most rational thing to do.

"Culture of hate and violence" = Some guy saying things you don't like.

"Love and peace" = Violently assaulting your political opponents.

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

nice try. but cam counts everything as violence. whether its a slight breath on his neck from the guy standing too close in line to getting speared from behind whilst mowing your lawn.

LOOOLLL!LL!L!L!L!L!!!

Actually, unironically, posting Sargon to support any point other than Sargon is a moron who can't read or even remember what he said five seconds ago.