Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!

[gnarlylove]

Voting is meaningless when both parties are funded by the same donors.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Our Constitution embraces Government. It's the peoples duty to understand what powers it should have.

To have a "government is evil" outlook is uneducated just as much as a "government needs more power" outlook is.

Actually, the Constitution embraces a just government that respects it and the people while remaining within its confines. And it is the people's duty to understand their rights so they can shove them down the government's throat.

So you added the word "just" to my statement and think you are correcting me?

Yes, I do. And I also added "that respects it and the people while remaining within its confines".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Venezuela is not a country I mentioned. I mentioned France, Norway and posted a link for more sourced information on what it is that I am saying. Do you care to comment on something I actually mentioned like Norway?

What's the problem with mentioning a shining example of socialism you left off your list? Did I destroy your argument by using actual data, r are you pointing to countries that are not actually implementing socialist theory in order to argue that socialism works?

Your comment on Venezuela is meaningless anyway. People do not need toilet paper to live or have a functioning economy. In fact, half of the world's population, mostly India and southeast Asia, do not use toilet paper to begin with. They use water, similar to a bidet. Toilet paper is a not a crucial commodity and has nothing to do with survival or the functioning of Venezuelan society.

Umm, what?

Only someone who has always had toilet paper would ever claim it isn't a necessity. Venezuela has shortages of all basic necessities, rice, flour, sugar, milk, and everything else you can think of. Socialism is a failed economic theory.

Capitalism is about free markets, it's not evolution. It is just one way to organize society. In fact, it is well known that free markets always break down and so capitalism will never work as it's suppose to. You always have to make adjustments, that is, if you've ever read economics or Keynes or Friedman. In fact, we are not currently in a capitalist economy as you very well know. There is massive state intervention into the market through bailouts and welfare that I am sure you wish did not exist, being a true champion for free markets like you are.

Let me guess, you think evolution is simply a way to organize nature.

Thus, your quote is accurate: "The ruthlessness in capitalism comes in by allowing companies to fail. Capitalism breaks down when companies become too big to fail, or with monopolies and oligarchies. Companies that are too big to fail, monopolies, and oligarchies might as well be run by the government since they have lost the attribute (ruthless feedback) that makes the capitalist model work."

It isn't my quote.

Free markets always lead to unfree markets. Free markets cannot exist for as soon as they exist, those who benefit the most from the free markets begin to use their influence to monopolize the market. That's why all developed countries do not have purely free market economies. It was tried and the business didn't like competition so they nestled up to the state to subsidize them for growth and bail them out in times of need. No system based in profit will ever produce a free market. As soon as you have a free market, those who have the most influence (e.g. wealth or political ties) will arrange the market so that they reap the benefits while being subsidized by the public.

That explains why black markets never last, the complete and utter lack of government regulation causes them to collapse upon themselves.

Wait, that is exactly the opposite of what actually happens. In reality, what happens is that government steps in with regulations, like Dodd-Frank, that drives small banks out of the market, and institutionalizes the very think you are whinging about.

And, yes, the word is whinging, not whining.

Thus your pledge for free markets is nonsense because it always undoes itself. Free markets cannot exist for very long until they become monpolized. Thus, if you do not live in a delusional world you will observe that all developed nations do not have real free markets. The reason is not because the wrong political party is in charge, it's because the profiteers want it this way and would have it no other way. Thus your free market zealousy comes to naught because those who can control the market best will do exactly that, no matter who is in charge, even you or me.

Pledge? What pledge are you talking about? When did I take it?

There has never, repeat never, been a monopoly that was not enforced by government. It is, quite literally, impossible for a monopoly to form otherwise, just like it is impossible for you to breathe water.

 

[gnarlylove]

What's the problem with mentioning a shining example of socialism you left off your list? Did I destroy your argument by using actual data, r are you pointing to countries that are not actually implementing socialist theory in order to argue that socialism works?

Venezuela is not Norway. They have different policies so we need to take this on a case by case basis. So we can talk about Venezuela too, but I'll go ahead and stipulate that Venezuela is a failed state (due to its lack of advanced ass wiping technology using bleached pulped trees) so my only relevant question is how do you account for the success of socialism in Norway? How can Norway have a decent society when it isn't obeying the laws of capitalism? Why is Norway measurably happier than Americans (see the forbes article I linked earlier)?

Your comment on Venezuela is meaningless anyway.

Umm, what?

I just blew your narrow white American mind because you think you think life ends when you don't have a freshly pulped, bleached tree with which to wipe your golden ass. It turns out a shortage of toilet paper is a very mild inconvenience and has no comparison to what would happen if there was a shortage of food, milk etc. So your example is very trivial and holds no weight in a serious economic discussion of production and distribution.

That explains why black markets never last, the complete and utter lack of government regulation causes them to collapse upon themselves.

So you're saying the government should regulate markets in order for them to continue? I just want to be clear that you do realize that regulation is the opposite of free markets?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's the problem with mentioning a shining example of socialism you left off your list? Did I destroy your argument by using actual data, r are you pointing to countries that are not actually implementing socialist theory in order to argue that socialism works?

Venezuela is not Norway.

Never said it was, did I?

They have different policies so we need to take this on a case by case basis. So we can talk about Venezuela too, but I'll go ahead and stipulate that Venezuela is a failed state (due to its lack of advanced ass wiping technology using bleached pulped trees) so my only relevant question is how do you account for the success of socialism in Norway?

By scoffing?

Norway has one of the highest costs of living of any country on the planet. One would think that, if socialism worked, that the cost of living would go down. Or would that be the oppositie of the goals of socialism.

How can Norway have a decent society when it isn't obeying the laws of capitalism? Why is Norway measurably happier than Americans (see the forbes article I linked earlier)?

Let me see if I can actually explain that in less that 8 billion words.

Economics is not society.

Wow, it only took 4.

Umm, what?

I just blew your narrow white American mind because you think you think life ends when you don't have a freshly pulped, bleached tree with which to wipe your golden ass. It turns out a shortage of toilet paper is a very mild inconvenience and has no comparison to what would happen if there was a shortage of food, milk etc. So your example is very trivial and holds no weight in a serious economic discussion of production and distribution.

I guess you decided to not read the part of my post where I pointed out the food shortages in Venezuela, so I will repeat it, and supply a link.

Venezuela tackles food shortage with ID card system | World news | theguardian.com

That feeling you have right now is the realization that you joined in a battle of wits and forgot that you don't have any.

That explains why black markets never last, the complete and utter lack of government regulation causes them to collapse upon themselves.

So you're saying the government should regulate markets in order for them to continue? I just want to be clear that you do realize that regulation is the opposite of free markets?

No, I am saying, as politely as possible because we are discussing this in the CDZ because the OP is afraid of an actual discussion, that you are completely ignorant and that you should crawl back under the rock you have been living under.

 

[gnarlylove]

Norway has one of the highest costs of living of any country on the planet. One would think that, if socialism worked, that the cost of living would go down.

Why do you think the goal should be to reduce the cost of living? Did you know that something can be done to off set the rise in the cost of living? It's called higher wages or salaries. If you raise the price of a good while also raising wages, you can keep pace the supposed "high cost of living." So what does Norway earn? It turns out they earn much more than their counterpart. "The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system."

For more information, see here How Much Do People Earn in Norway? - My Little Norway

I guess you decided to not read the part of my post where I pointed out the food shortages in Venezuela, so I will repeat it, and supply a link.

Venezuela tackles food shortage with ID card system | World news | theguardian.com

Venezuela is not the only country on Earth with food shortages. America also has its type of food insecurity.

"A recent USDA report reveals that nearly 18 million families, or 49 million people, lacked “food security” which is defined as “consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living.” Food insecurity is a polite term for starvation.

Since 1995, the percent starving in the US hovered at or below 12%. That changed in 2008 when it jumped to 14.6%, and has stayed above 14% since then. In 2012, the percentage was 14.5%, or one in seven people."
?National Security? versus ?Food Insecurity?: One in Seven Hungry in America as Obama Prepares for Syrian War | Global Research

"In 2012, 49.0 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.1 million adults and 15.9 million children.
In 2012, 14.5 percent of households (17.6 million households) were food insecure.
In 2012, 5.7 percent of households (7.0 million households) experienced very low food security."
Hunger Statistics, Hunger Facts & Poverty Facts | Feeding America

So America, despite its glory, is also struggling with food, a most basic necessity. So if it's the earmark of a bad economy to struggle with food, does that mean the American economy, like the Venezuelan economy, is a bad economy?

That feeling you have right now is the realization that you joined in a battle of wits and forgot that you don't have any.

Look, I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot months ago. I have given up any "wits," and just like you said I do not have any to begin with. I am sorry that you feel threatened by my questions and resort to saying I'm ignorant. I am very ignorant, but why do you take me to be challenging you when I have asked you to explain your position to me? I am not trying to convince you of anything and I respect your passion for freedom and America and capitalism. I too want to understand why you are so passionate. So to help me understand your passion, I would ask you to please stick to answering my questions. Is this too much to ask? If so please let me know and I will stop.

That explains why black markets never last, the complete and utter lack of government regulation causes them to collapse upon themselves.

So you're saying the government should regulate markets in order for them to continue? I just want to be clear that you do realize that regulation is the opposite of free markets?

No, I am saying, as politely as possible because we are discussing this in the CDZ because the OP is afraid of an actual discussion, that you are completely ignorant and that you should crawl back under the rock you have been living under.

You forgot to answer the question. Should we regulate markets?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Norway has one of the highest costs of living of any country on the planet. One would think that, if socialism worked, that the cost of living would go down.

Why do you think the goal should be to reduce the cost of living? Did you know that something can be done to off set the rise in the cost of living? It's called higher wages or salaries. If you raise the price of a good while also raising wages, you can keep pace the supposed "high cost of living." So what does Norway earn? It turns out they earn much more than their counterpart. "The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system."

For more information, see here How Much Do People Earn in Norway? - My Little Norway

If nothing can be done about the rising cost of living why is it going up faster in some places than others? Why is it always countries that have welfare states that have higher costs of living?

I guess you decided to not read the part of my post where I pointed out the food shortages in Venezuela, so I will repeat it, and supply a link.

Venezuela tackles food shortage with ID card system | World news | theguardian.com

Venezuela is not the only country on Earth with food shortages. America also has its type of food insecurity.

"A recent USDA report reveals that nearly 18 million families, or 49 million people, lacked “food security” which is defined as “consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living.” Food insecurity is a polite term for starvation.

Since 1995, the percent starving in the US hovered at or below 12%. That changed in 2008 when it jumped to 14.6%, and has stayed above 14% since then. In 2012, the percentage was 14.5%, or one in seven people."
?National Security? versus ?Food Insecurity?: One in Seven Hungry in America as Obama Prepares for Syrian War | Global Research

"In 2012, 49.0 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.1 million adults and 15.9 million children.
In 2012, 14.5 percent of households (17.6 million households) were food insecure.
In 2012, 5.7 percent of households (7.0 million households) experienced very low food security."
Hunger Statistics, Hunger Facts & Poverty Facts | Feeding America

So America, despite its glory, is also struggling with food, a most basic necessity. So if it's the earmark of a bad economy to struggle with food, does that mean the American economy, like the Venezuelan economy, is a bad economy?

Do you understand the difference between food rationing and complaining because people don't know if they are going to eat at McDonald's or Burger King?

Look, I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot months ago. I have given up any "wits," and just like you said I do not have any to begin with. I am sorry that you feel threatened by my questions and resort to saying I'm ignorant. I am very ignorant, but why do you take me to be challenging you when I have asked you to explain your position to me? I am not trying to convince you of anything and I respect your passion for freedom and America and capitalism. I too want to understand why you are so passionate. So to help me understand your passion, I would ask you to please stick to answering my questions. Is this too much to ask? If so please let me know and I will stop.

I never feel threatened by religious motivated ignorance. I usually ignore it, but you insisted on confronting me with yours. If you feel the massive amount of contempt I have for your willful ignorance, don't respect me to feel bad about it. Perhaps, just perhaps, if more people treated you with the contempt your beliefs deserve you would stop expressing them in intelligent company.

So you're saying the government should regulate markets in order for them to continue? I just want to be clear that you do realize that regulation is the opposite of free markets?

No, I am saying, as politely as possible because we are discussing this in the CDZ because the OP is afraid of an actual discussion, that you are completely ignorant and that you should crawl back under the rock you have been living under.

You forgot to answer the question. Should we regulate markets?

I did not forget anything, you just cannot read.

 

[gnarlylove]

Should we regulate markets? Telling me I should crawl under a rock is not an answer to that question. I may well be totally and completely stupid, utterly ignorant and have no brain matter. I concede that I lack your enlightenment and wisdom. But continuing to tell me I am ignorant and cannot read does not help me reach your enlightened state of awareness and humanity. So should we regulate markets?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.

It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.

If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.

LMFAO!

4 and 11 are great. I don't like the person under the law thing in 6. Seems like, given the kinda legalistic wordplay politicians use these days coupled with the fact that UN politicians are pretty typical in that respect, I could see 6 being used as justification to force open borders for everyone who signs onto this ridiculous document.

Yes, ridiculous, primarily because of 25. Didn't read anymore after I got to that point.

25 and 4 directly contradict each other. Amendment 25 is the right to food, housing, medical care, etc. These are material things.

In the event that someone is unable or unwilling to provide those things for themselves, that implication in this right is that someone else is to provide these things -for- them. Regardless of their will. It's a right, so these things -must- be provided!

That means it's everyone's right to subjugate the will of those capable of providing them with their material rights, assuming they aren't providing themselves with those things. In article 4, the document outlaws slavery, and then in article 25, the article says that slavery -will- be the norm when it's necessary to provide those things that are deemed necessary.

I oppose the "right" to any material thing. Period. There's also a whole list of other bullshit articles in this list to which I am diametrically opposed, as well as an entire gamete of reasons why I feel that the UN's proposed philosophies are anti-freedom and thus that we shouldn't sign onto -any- of their bullshit social treaties or allow them even a minor foothold of authority in our system.

Sovereignty or bust, bitches. Fuck this international order.

I thank you very sincerely for giving a cogent reply. What you say makes sense if you believe it and so I give you credit for that. So food and water are not rights to human beings, they are commodities only, and so you think article 25 is nonsense. Why is water a commodity--making the right to life the single greatest lie? Right to life cannot exist if one is denied access to life (e.g. water).

So why do inalienable rights exist but we do not have the right to exist? Why would I care if it says on paper I have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness when I do not have the right to water and therefore life? Seems like the only right that matters is the right to life, all others are secondary.

You have the right to be alive, yes. You also have the right to do everything in your power to acquire water. You have the right to do everything in your power to acquire food. I don't have any right to keep you from doing these things.

However, if I have water and you demand it of me, I have the right to keep it and tell you to get fucked.

If you have the right to -water-, that means that you get water whether you can acquire it for yourself or not. That means that if you can't get it for yourself, someone else has to provide it to you. That means you have the right to enslave someone to the degree that is necessary to get your water.

Where our document says life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nowhere is the implication that you have the right to the material things that keep you alive. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness imply that you have the right to pursue these things. The right to life implies that no one can ever make the legal assertion that your existence is errant, and no one can take your life without being in violation of your rights.

The right to life and what you're describing aren't necessarily the same thing, and the US's enumeration of the right to life is -definitely- not the same as your right to water. The US's right to life doesn't allow for the subjugation of anyone else where the right to water often necessitates it.

Here's where me and the UN differ. I demand that every individual be allowed to follow their own conscience to the degree that they aren't subjugating anyone else's will to do the same. The UN demands that everyone follow the will of -their- (the UN's) collective conscience.

When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience. Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Notice that the op has vanished again. Anytime you point out his idiocy he runs away.

 

[hangover]

Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!

You can be anti-party, but everyone will still have left and right bias. I lean left on some things, right on others. i.e. I have guns, but I also believe in taking care of the elderly. I believe in a balanced budget, but not a war based economy.
But the thing about anti-party, is the game is rigged for the two parties. So not voting only allows the idiots to run the government. Well, they do anyway, but one is wimpy and spineless, the other is cruel and evil. It's a sad choice, I know.

 

[gnarlylove]

When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience. Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.

Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?

By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.

In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right. Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience. Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.

Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?

By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.

In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right. Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?

The government is a sincere tyrant?

If water is a natural right why isn't there a source of water following you around?

 

[gnarlylove]

I never feel threatened by religious motivated ignorance. I usually ignore it, but you insisted on confronting me with yours. If you feel the massive amount of contempt I have for your willful ignorance, don't respect me to feel bad about it. Perhaps, just perhaps, if more people treated you with the contempt your beliefs deserve you would stop expressing them in intelligent company.

If I am ignorant, I am very willing to hear what you have to say. That is not willful ignorance. Instead you make much of your post about defaming my intelligence. So am I ignorant because I do not defame myself? What am I willfully ignorant of?

I am being sincere and I hope you are able to explain yourself without continuing your ad hominem assault in this clean debate forum. I try to respect your positions by asking sincere questions so that I may come out of my ignorance and into the light. Perhaps your passion is so extreme and rigidly fundamental that you are incapable of adhering to the one simple rule in the clean debate forum.

I guess I have no choice but to accept your passion and incapability of abiding by the one rule of the clean debate forum, but why must I accept your constant berating and hostility? I am not trying to harm you. If anything I am trying to understand your understanding, which is the truth according to you. It doesn't make any sense that you would berate my delusional worldview without expressing what is so delusional about it. It would seem that your assertion is without substance and is hollow. I have no hope of becoming enlightened like you are without you articulating what it is that causes my delusions. My goal is that I may join you in the light of truth. If you do not wish for me to join you, then how can you claim truth? The truth is universal and if you do not think I can join you, then your truth is not universal. So then why would I even care that you claim to have a truth that is not true for everyone?

William James on how humans are prone to consider themselves right (very revelatory):

Every one is nevertheless prone to claim that his conclusions are the only logical ones, that they are necessities of universal reason... Let me make a few comments, here, on the curious antipathies which these partialities arouse. They are sovereignly unjust, for all the parties are human beings with the same essential interests, and no one of them is the wholly perverse demon which another often imagines him to be. Both are loyal to the world that bears them; neither wishes to spoil it; neither wishes to regard it as an insane incoherence; both want to keep it as a universe of some kind; and their differences are all secondary to this deep agreement. They may be only propensities to emphasize differently. Or one man may care for finality and security more than the other. Or their tastes in language may be different. One may like a universe that lends itself to lofty and exalted characterization. To another this may seem sentimental or rhetorical. One may wish for the right to use a clerical vocabulary, another a technical or professorial one. A certain old farmer of my acquaintance in America was called a rascal by one of his neighbors. He immediately smote the man, saying,'I won't stand none of your diminutive epithets.'...

But all such differences are minor matters which ought to be subordinated in view of the fact that, whether we be empiricists or rationalists, we are, ourselves, parts of the universe and share the same one deep concern in its destinies. We crave alike to feel more truly at home with it, and to contribute our mite to its amelioration. It would be pitiful if small aesthetic discords were to keep honest men asunder.

This contains a grave truth that you have not fully grasped. Your bitterness towards me is based in secondary qualities. And I suspect, nay, I know you have very little understanding of what it is I actually believe (just as I have little understanding of your belief). The difference between us is I don't make up beliefs and systems about you to fill in my gaps of knowledge about you.

You, on the other hand, have consolidated a whole system out of the 20 some posts you've read of mine and engage in a full on ad hominem attack of my intelligence despite knowing very very little about what I actually believe. On top of that, you don't even have the fortitude to respect the one rule of this forum. You have every right to disagree with me but it seems you are only trained in attacking your opponents intelligence. That is not disagreement, that is childish behavior not suitable for serious debate and especially on this clean debate forum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If I am ignorant, I am very willing to hear what you have to say. That is not willful ignorance. Instead you make much of your post about defaming my intelligence. So am I ignorant because I do not defame myself? What am I willfully ignorant of?

If you were really willing to hear what I have to say you would open your mind and listen. What actually happens is you say something, I provide evidence that contradicts it, you then run around in circles and repeat your claims. An example of that is the whole thing with Venezuela. I pointed out that they have widespread shortages of everything from flour to toilet paper, and you pretend that the fact that the US has people who might miss one meal a month is proof that the US is just as bad.

In other words, you are willfully ignorant because you choose to ignore the facts. If you agree with me that that reflects negatively on your intelligence, stop doing it, then I will no longer be able to use it to comment on your lack of intelligence.

I am being sincere and I hope you are able to explain yourself without continuing your ad hominem assault in this clean debate forum. I try to respect your positions by asking sincere questions so that I may come out of my ignorance and into the light. Perhaps your passion is so extreme and rigidly fundamental that you are incapable of adhering to the one simple rule in the clean debate forum.

I am explaining why you are not sincere. An ad hominem is when I dismiss your argument based on an irrelevant fact about you. Since I am actually attacking your argument based on the fact that you choose to ignore facts that contradict your position, I am not engaging in ad hominem attack. That means that I am actually within both the letter and the spirit of the rules in this zone.

I guess I have no choice but to accept your passion and incapability of abiding by the one rule of the clean debate forum, but why must I accept your constant berating and hostility? I am not trying to harm you. If anything I am trying to understand your understanding, which is the truth according to you. It doesn't make any sense that you would berate my delusional worldview without expressing what is so delusional about it. It would seem that your assertion is without substance and is hollow. I have no hope of becoming enlightened like you are without you articulating what it is that causes my delusions. My goal is that I may join you in the light of truth. If you do not wish for me to join you, then how can you claim truth? The truth is universal and if you do not think I can join you, then your truth is not universal. So then why would I even care that you claim to have a truth that is not true for everyone?

Funny how religious fundamentalists always try to tell me how they are their delusions are proof that I don't understand that evolution isn't true. Especially after I explain, in detail why their delusions are not based in reality.

Do you recall how I pointed out, more than once, that economics is not social policy? And how you kept insisting that various economic theories were actually different ways of organizing society? Or when I pointed out that socialism results in shortages, and you dismissed rationing as nothing more than people missing a meal? After all of that why on Earth would I, or anyone else, believe you latest attempt to pretend you are being reasonable?

William James on how humans are prone to consider themselves right (very revelatory):

Every one is nevertheless prone to claim that his conclusions are the only logical ones, that they are necessities of universal reason... Let me make a few comments, here, on the curious antipathies which these partialities arouse. They are sovereignly unjust, for all the parties are human beings with the same essential interests, and no one of them is the wholly perverse demon which another often imagines him to be. Both are loyal to the world that bears them; neither wishes to spoil it; neither wishes to regard it as an insane incoherence; both want to keep it as a universe of some kind; and their differences are all secondary to this deep agreement. They may be only propensities to emphasize differently. Or one man may care for finality and security more than the other. Or their tastes in language may be different. One may like a universe that lends itself to lofty and exalted characterization. To another this may seem sentimental or rhetorical. One may wish for the right to use a clerical vocabulary, another a technical or professorial one. A certain old farmer of my acquaintance in America was called a rascal by one of his neighbors. He immediately smote the man, saying,'I won't stand none of your diminutive epithets.'...

But all such differences are minor matters which ought to be subordinated in view of the fact that, whether we be empiricists or rationalists, we are, ourselves, parts of the universe and share the same one deep concern in its destinies. We crave alike to feel more truly at home with it, and to contribute our mite to its amelioration. It would be pitiful if small aesthetic discords were to keep honest men asunder.

This contains a grave truth that you have not fully grasped. Your bitterness towards me is based in secondary qualities. And I suspect, nay, I know you have very little understanding of what it is I actually believe (just as I have little understanding of your belief). The difference between us is I don't make up beliefs and systems about you to fill in my gaps of knowledge about you.

Excuse me while I catch my breath, that was hilarious.

I am not bitter toward you, you are projecting. What I feel toward you is contempt and a smidgen of condescension.

The real difference between us is I am not trying to understand you, I am explaining why your positions are wrong, and pointing out that your inability to accept contradictory evidence is symptomatic of a closed mind.

You, on the other hand, have consolidated a whole system out of the 20 some posts you've read of mine and engage in a full on ad hominem attack of my intelligence despite knowing very very little about what I actually believe. On top of that, you don't even have the fortitude to respect the one rule of this forum. You have every right to disagree with me but it seems you are only trained in attacking your opponents intelligence. That is not disagreement, that is childish behavior not suitable for serious debate and especially on this clean debate forum.

You have made roughly 1000 posts on this forum, I have read a lot more than 20 of them. Like I said earlier, I usually ignore people who put their religious beliefs over evidence, you forced me to confront you in this thread. You probably did that assuming that I, like most people who run into your particular brand of fanaticism, would simply fold in the face of you intransigence. You guessed wrong, I have experience with people like you, and don't lose my cool simply because you pretend that I am crazy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?

More like the Tea Party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you study what the term "Conservative" actually means it means "unwilling to change".

What we see today is lot's of people unwilling to research anything . The Left tends to research their topics so I follow more topics of the Left than from the Right. That's no secret. What you missed is that I don't follow the Left into their bad sides like no voter ID and Abortion and others.

You did what I stated earlier. You shunned me the instant I didn't believe in everything you believe in. Basic cult style behavior.

Learn more man/ or woman. (Did saying man or woman make me a liberal, because I almost typed "man" by default but thought it though and guessed you could be a female)

So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.

You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

When you demand the right to water, -you- demand that everyone be enslaved to -your- conscience. Sorry, but that makes you a wanna-be tyrant.

Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?

By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.

In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right. Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?

I'm gonna go backwards because your CEO argument is my fucking -favorite-

The fact that there was a worldwide boycott doesn't affect my opinion in the -slightest-. The fact that you imply that worldwide opinion denotes the probability of correctness leads me to believe that you're probably not possessed of the logical ability to have a substantive conversation regarding abstract subject matter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to debate this.

Next up, determining who lives and dies -is- in fact the desire of a true tyrant. I desire no such thing.

Saying someone doesn't have the -right- to water is not denying them water. This is one of the worst straw men I've seen on the board -ever-, which makes it quite a fuckin scarecrow! Your implication is that people either have the -right- to water or don't get to have it at all. How fuckin silly are you?

Do I have the right to internet access or a computer? No, I don't. Yet somehow, here I am posting political opinions on an online message board. Weird. You mean I'm able to have a computer even though I don't have the right to a computer? People are able to acquire things that aren't automatically their's by right? WHAT A CONCEPT!

The way we determine who gets to have water and who doesn't? Why, we don't determine that at all. We let everyone determine whether or not they go get their water. The ones who aren't able to acquire it will be the ones who don't have it. That simple. That doesn't require me to be a tyrant, it requires me to leave everyone to their own devices. That's the whole idea of individual freedom, which is my highest standard. By that standard, the only time we force people to behave against their desires is when their desires include the subjugation of anyone else's.

Your highest standard is collective "well-being", and the reason I put it in quotations is because it's based on your opinion of what is "good" for that collective. The problem with that desire, in my opinion, is that it subjugates the will of any individual with a different idea of what is "good". This is roughly the same value as that in the UN document, except that they probably (hopefully, for the sake of my opinion of your cognitive functions) have different opinions on the particulars of what is "good". Even as fellow collectivists, the UN's rule would likely subjugate your will to many standards that aren't your own.

 

[Crystalclear]

Isn't this a bit like the Libertarian Party?

More like the Tea Party.

No, I don't think so. Everyone accuses the topic poster of being a Democrat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, I don't think so. Everyone accuses the topic poster of being a Democrat.

He is a far left loon, to be sure. But seems more OWS to me.