Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 8 2021 01:32pm)

thats rich considering the democrats are a rainbow of ideologies willing to kill each other if it were legal. black and gays, jews and muslims, blacks and asians, blacks and blacks.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 8 2021 03:15pm)

That's because Democrats are just a dumping ground for "not Republican". They are united in a common ideology of "We think Republcans are worse".

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 8 2021 02:18pm)

Libertarians are the dumping ground of people who think both sides are worse, because if either side uses the govt to fix problems that's worse.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 8 2021 03:22pm)

Exactly, it's the dumping ground for people who don't like government. You just said what I said but a little longer.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 8 2021 01:13pm)

I heard an interesting thought experiment recently and I'd like to hear your opinion.


Let's say you're driving and you hit a pedestrian. The only way to save his life is to hook the person up to your blood supply until he's healed.

1. Should you be obligated to hook yourself up to him to save his life? (analagous to plan B pill which prevents implantation)
2. If you agree to be hooked up to him do you have a right to terminate the connection? (You refuse plan B)
3. If you didn't agree but were still hooked up either against your will or because you were knocked out in the crash, do you have the right to terminate your connection? (You were being responsible and it was an accident, but you got pregnant anyway)
4. Do any of these change if you were driving normally versus driving wrecklessly vs driving drunk?

Quote (toyake @ Dec 8 2021 01:11pm)

nvm

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 8 2021 01:15pm)

You guys really should just drop the common label honestly. You guys fight like cats and dogs and can't agree on even the most basic aspects of the ideology. You're more of a "fuck the government" dumping space than an actual party or ideology.

Quote (thesnipa @ 8 Dec 2021 21:10)

the problem is that in the deep red states where the "attack of women" is in full force its fairly popular with the people who live there, even many of the red state dems have wildly out of line abortion opinions from coastal dems. and a heap of attention wont make codifying it into national law IMO any easier. especially when trump and his veto stamp were in office. even if it were it would be subject to a scotus ruling from a body of judges who LOVE state's rights, so around and around it goes.

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 8 2021 02:25pm)

you're implying fuck the govt isnt a perfectly workable political ideology, which is silly af.

its like saying not liking tofu of any kind isnt an opinion of tofu.

Quote (Santara @ Dec 8 2021 02:26pm)

I think this sounds suspiciously close to straw man territory, in that it is superficially similar to what we're discussing, but isn't actually analogous.

First and foremost, it's a simply preposterous scenario. There are obviously multiple ways to keep a person alive. If you've struck someone, you really do owe a moral duty to help them in whatever manner you're able.

Quote (thesnipa @ 8 Dec 2021 21:25)

you're implying fuck the govt isnt a perfectly workable political ideology, which is silly af.

its like saying not liking tofu of any kind isnt an opinion of tofu.

Quote (fender @ Dec 8 2021 03:27pm)

oh come on, can we please do away with the notion that conservative activist judges are principled on, or even in "love" with states' rights? they love to tout that when it fits their agenda, but they don't give a shit about them when it doesn't. it's very much like conservatives allegedly principled stance on "free speech" - you only ever hear that when it comes to bigoted speech, while at the same time they are trying to censor speech they don't like all over the country, and they aren't even particularly subtle about it.

i'm not saying that to absolve dems or anything, i'm just tired of people simply accepting those dishonest narratives as truth, and basing their arguments on them.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 8 2021 03:29pm)

Sure, until you get to actual questions on how to organize society, at which point they can't agree on any issue. "Libertarian" basically encompasses the entirety of the bottom half of the political spectrum. Too brad to really be a group in itself. They try to pretend they're united under the NAP, but that's not even true.



Bruh, don't be dumb. It's a thought experiment. You use it to clarify relavent principles, not draw a perfect 1:1 comparison.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 8 2021 02:29pm)

Sure, until you get to actual questions on how to organize society, at which point they can't agree on any issue. "Libertarian" basically encompasses the entirety of the bottom half of the political spectrum. Too brad to really be a group in itself. They try to pretend they're united under the NAP, but that's not even true.



Bruh, don't be dumb. It's a thought experiment. You use it to clarify relavent principles, not draw a perfect 1:1 comparison.

Quote (me)

If you've struck someone, you really do owe a moral duty to help them in whatever manner you're able.