d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Political Picture Thread
Prev12762772782792805001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 93,011
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,214.94
Sep 25 2015 02:36pm
Quote (Skinned @ Sep 25 2015 02:20pm)
Okay, only a Grade-A idiot would compare the two in any seriousness.


I think you can compare alot about the two, in seriousness, as long as you dont equate them.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Sep 25 2015 02:37pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 25 2015 02:36pm)
I think you can compare alot about the two, in seriousness, as long as you dont equate them.


Dude, be honest with yourself. They're being equated. If you want to make a nuanced point about the similarities between the policies go for it, but that's not done by putting Bernie in a picture next to mass murderes and including him in "the most dangerous group".
Member
Posts: 53,552
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 1,908.33
Sep 25 2015 02:50pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 25 2015 04:29pm)
I get what it's saying, but it's just making excuses. Oh, this isn't a legitimate comparison because warlords sprang up! No shit, that's what happens if you remove police from society. You don't get a fanciful world where people hire private security. You get lawlessness and clan mentality. This extends to pretty much every other facet of "free market" ideology. markets are great, but they're not perfect. Industry is great, but without reigning in externalities the results are shitty.


You really don't. A war torn failed third world state being governed by various warlords is not representative of the merits or substance of libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. Yet here you are trumpeting somalia as its conclusion.
At no point do ancaps or libertarians here indicate that removing current state police or the current government are the sole requirements for a productive libertarian/ancap society.

Quote
Cool. You get to make this comparison if you also don't complain when I compare Ron Paul to Hitler because they were both nationalistic which has the potential to cause a holocaust.

Labeling Ron Paul 'nationalistic' seems a bit strained and bizarre.
Ron Paul directly opposed Hitlers form of government and its implementation.

I can complain or criticize something whenever I feel like it and reserve the right to point out ridiculous comparisons.
You could also point out they both liked dogs. It would be essentially meaningless in a conversation about harm in politics.
In the case of marxism being dangerous that is an inherent trait in political leaders looking to violently enforce it on a massive scale. The devastation and poverty is not merely coincidental, but rather causal.


Quote
Dude, be honest with yourself. They're being equated. If you want to make a nuanced point about the similarities between the policies go for it, but that's not done by putting Bernie in a picture next to mass murderes and including him in "the most dangerous group".

Obviously the picture has some level of humor and shock value and they are not exactly the same.
Do you think when NWA had the original picture they were saying all of them were exactly equal and the same? Or were there differences?

But a potential president Sanders enforcing his tyrannical impoverishing agenda certainly IS extremely dangerous.
Would you like to argue otherwise?
Member
Posts: 2,664
Joined: Dec 4 2011
Gold: 6.66
Sep 25 2015 02:51pm
Quote (cambovenzi @ Sep 25 2015 10:25pm)
This is more bullshit. You avoid intelligent discussion at all costs and then libel libertarians by pretending they are the ones opposed to intelligent arguments.. ridiculous.


Ah, it's bullshit, okay.

Libertarianism doesn't make a distinction between ideal freedom and effective freedom. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion then. You can incarcerate a person, tell him he's free to escape, and then say it's his fault he couldn't break free. If you don't see an issue, then at least you're being consistent :D

This post was edited by Neptunus on Sep 25 2015 02:56pm
Member
Posts: 53,552
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 1,908.33
Sep 25 2015 03:13pm
Quote (Neptunus @ Sep 25 2015 04:51pm)
Ah, it's bullshit, okay.

Yes claiming libertarians are opposed to intelligent discussions while you cowardly hide from intellectual debate with one is bullshit.
Do you have a problem with that assessment or were you conceding the point?

Quote
Libertarianism doesn't make a distinction between ideal freedom and effective freedom. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion then. You can incarcerate a person, tell him he's free to escape, and then say it's his fault he couldn't break free. If you don't see an issue, then at least you're being consistent. :)

This is an actual strawman and a shitty analogy.
You awkwardly lurch away from what was said with halfbaked claims about your understanding of libertarianism rather than attempting to refute what I said or back up your claims.
Libertarianism isn't blaming prisoners for not breaking free, nor are they calling literal imprisonment freedom. Not even analogously. Nor is that relevant to the issue of your intellectual bankruptcy and juvenileness.
They do however have plenty of literature explaining liberty and what they advocate and why, (a not-insignificant portion of which that is dedicated to addressing negative vs positive liberty,) that you wont bother to consult before pretending you understand what they believe and do.
Banning the options of poor people and taking away some of the better ways available for them to have a better life there isn't giving them more 'effective freedom' or a higher quality of life either. It worsens their condition.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Sep 25 2015 03:28pm
Member
Posts: 78,723
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 493.00
Sep 25 2015 03:34pm
Member
Posts: 2,664
Joined: Dec 4 2011
Gold: 6.66
Sep 25 2015 03:40pm
Quote (cambovenzi @ Sep 25 2015 11:13pm)
Yes claiming libertarians are opposed to intelligent discussions while you cowardly hide from intellectual debate with one is bullshit.
Do you have a problem with that assessment or were you conceding the point?


This is an actual strawman and a shitty analogy.
You awkwardly lurch away from what was said with halfbaked claims about your understanding of libertarianism rather than attempting to refute what I said or back up your claims.
Libertarians aren't blaming prisoners for not breaking free, nor are they calling literal imprisonment freedom. Not even analogously. Nor is that relevant to the issue of your intellectual bankruptcy and juvenileness.
They do however have plenty of literature explaining liberty and what they advocate and why, that you wont bother to consult before pretending you understand what they believe and do.
Banning the options of poor people and taking away some of the better ways available for them to have a better life there isn't giving them more 'effective freedom' or a higher quality of life either. It worsens their condition.


I only made a point to separate ideal freedom from effective freedom. I don't claim libertarianism is like that, but there are parallels. People are born into conditions that undoubtedly affect their choices.

I know enough about social sciences and state macroeconomics to see that very few issues can have an objective and utilitarian solutions to them. Objectivity is based on collective values and utilitarianism requires a definition of what is good, and that's why i don't bother discussing "facts". European countries have higher standards of living than the US by many metrics, but what does social equality through authoritarian measures matter to you if you value liberty more than that.

This post was edited by Neptunus on Sep 25 2015 03:41pm
Member
Posts: 53,552
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 1,908.33
Sep 25 2015 03:44pm


Member
Posts: 53,552
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 1,908.33
Sep 25 2015 03:46pm
Member
Posts: 53,552
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 1,908.33
Sep 25 2015 03:56pm




Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12762772782792805001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll