Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[citizenzen]

In your "reality" the existence of need trumps all. There are no facts, logic, reason and there are definitely no rights that can be allowed to stand in the way of need. Something like the right to own private property. What right does anyone have to own a home when there are homeless? What right do I have to feed my children when some parents out there choose not to feed theirs? Who am I to drive to work in my own car when some can't afford a bus ticket? Your "reality" is the tyranny of failure.

Your cartoon depiction of "reality" is laughable. I own my own home. Last time I checked I don't run into any homeless people camping in my kitchen.

Go to bed CP, that eighteenth beer did not serve you well last night.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Your cartoon depiction of "reality" is laughable. I own my own home. Last time I checked I don't run into any homeless people camping in my kitchen.

Go to bed CP, that eighteenth beer did not serve you well last night.

You assume I was speaking to you specifically, and you assume that I was intoxicated at the time. Cut this one short citizenzen, and take a nap, your assumptions are not serving you well today.

I was talking about Mare's political philosophy based on what I've heard from her so far. To her nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of "need". That was my argument. I was not talking about homeless people in your house buddy. Try to keep up.

 

[citizenzen]

I was talking about Mare's political philosophy based on what I've heard from her so far. To her nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of "need".

I highly doubt that is true. And rather than tell her what she thinks, why don't we ask her instead?

Here. I'll show you how that's done...

Mare, should nothing stand in the way of a need being met? Would you, for instance, say that nobody could own a private home so long as there were homeless still on the street?

There. See how forming your thoughts into a question invites dialogue? you also might be surprised by the response she gives. Let's sit back, and wait for her to respond.

Isn't this exciting? I can hardly wait!

 

[GenSeneca]

GenSeca supports this, I think, but he is so coy about saying what he believes that I don't really know.

I do not support the forced redistribution of wealth.
Because:
I do not support the violation of individual rights.

I have repeated those statements several times in this thread yet you claim you don't really know what I believe?

Anyone who supports the forced redistribution of wealth, is advocating for the violation of individual rights.

I've been very upfront with my statements about what I believe

You have been incredibly vague on some points and inconsistent on others. You said you wanted a more Egalitarian society but when I asked you which definition of Egalitarianism you were using, you said you supported definition #1, which precludes the possiblity of forcing the redistribution of wealth... yet here you are, still arguing in favor of the forced redistribution of wealth which would be definition #2. For an example of where your comments have been vague, see below.

GenSeca says we shouldn't even do what Gandhi did

He ran them out of the country in order to confiscate all their wealth and redistribute it among the population.

Is that what you want to do?

If not, then please, spell out precisely, step by step, the actions you see necessary to correct the problems. Be specific.

If you have a better idea, something that takes no force of any kind, then why don't you just say so?

Here's my idea, again: A law that bans the initiation of the use of force, so that individuals, groups, and even the government are no longer allowed to legally violate the rights of individuals.

What part of that do you find objectionable?

Page after page you argue the same thing, but don't offer any solution except for the poor people to die quietly

Appeal to Ridicule: a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument.

When an individual has nothing but logical fallacies to present in defense of their position, or to refute the views of their opponent, it is a sure sign that their argument is intellectually bankrupt and has either already failed, or is in the process of failing.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

I highly doubt that is true. And rather than tell her what she thinks, why don't we ask her instead?

Here. I'll show you how that's done...

Mare, should nothing stand in the way of a need being met? Would you, for instance, say that nobody could own a private home so long as there were homeless still on the street?

There. See how forming your thoughts into a question invites dialogue? you also might be surprised by the response she gives. Let's sit back, and wait for her to respond.

Isn't this exciting? I can hardly wait!

You are cracking me up guy... err... girl... whatever. So it is your position that when I am debating politics with a liberal, the only thing I should be doing is setting them up for the spike? Sorry no CZ, I'll continue to highlight inconsistencies and clarify vague platitudes. I know liberals hate this style of rebuttal since all they have to offer is inconsistencies and vague platitudes. Believe it or not, I'm not hear to learn from you or any other liberal. Neither you nor Mare, is going to be able to make the same arguments that I have heard from hundreds liberals on a dozen different forums in a way that will open my mind to them. I am here to teach CZ. I am here to point out flaws in the logic of people making arguments that I disagree with. I do it because as small as my part is to play, I think it is important. I think that far to often liberal rewriting of history is allowed to go unchallenged until it becomes accepted truth to the masses that choose not to educate themselves. If during my lifetime I can poke enough holes in progressive philosophy in front of enough people that I bring enlightenment to say 10 or 20 people. It will be enough. I will have multiplied my vote, and I will be able to say that I did my part to try and stop the progressive movement before it does here what it has done everywhere else. I will be able to answer my children when they ask me where I was, and what I was doing when America was changing. I'll be able to tell them that I didn't sit back and do nothing. When I am arguing with you or any of the other liberals here or anywhere else CZ, I am not trying to convince you. I know that you cannot be convinced. I am trying to convince anybody reading the discussions CZ, and I know firsthand that I am effective. I've had at least a dozen people talk to me either in my personal life when I discuss these issues, or in places like this, and tell me that I changed their minds. Who knows how many more than that I may have convinced? Who knows how many may have had the seed of doubt planted by me in their minds? That is why I spend time in places like this CZ. So please disabuse yourself of any hopeful fantasies that I am here to give progressives the idea that their arguments are in any way valid.

 

[PLC1]

You are cracking me up guy... err... girl... whatever. So it is your position that when I am debating politics with a liberal, the only thing I should be doing is setting them up for the spike? Sorry no CZ, I'll continue to highlight inconsistencies and clarify vague platitudes. I know liberals hate this style of rebuttal since all they have to offer is inconsistencies and vague platitudes. Believe it or not, I'm not hear to learn from you or any other liberal. Neither you nor Mare, is going to be able to make the same arguments that I have heard from hundreds liberals on a dozen different forums in a way that will open my mind to them. I am here to teach CZ. I am here to point out flaws in the logic of people making arguments that I disagree with. I do it because as small as my part is to play, I think it is important. I think that far to often liberal rewriting of history is allowed to go unchallenged until it becomes accepted truth to the masses that choose not to educate themselves. If during my lifetime I can poke enough holes in progressive philosophy in front of enough people that I bring enlightenment to say 10 or 20 people. It will be enough. I will have multiplied my vote, and I will be able to say that I did my part to try and stop the progressive movement before it does here what it has done everywhere else. I will be able to answer my children when they ask me where I was, and what I was doing when America was changing. I'll be able to tell them that I didn't sit back and do nothing. When I am arguing with you or any of the other liberals here or anywhere else CZ, I am not trying to convince you. I know that you cannot be convinced. I am trying to convince anybody reading the discussions CZ, and I know firsthand that I am effective. I've had at least a dozen people talk to me either in my personal life when I discuss these issues, or in places like this, and tell me that I changed their minds. Who knows how many more than that I may have convinced? Who knows how many may have had the seed of doubt planted by me in their minds? That is why I spend time in places like this CZ. So please disabuse yourself of any hopeful fantasies that I am here to give progressives the idea that their arguments are in any way valid.

Interesting.

Your definition of "liberal" is, what?

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Interesting.

Your definition of "liberal" is, what?

The word itself is corrupted. When I use the term in a situation like this I am referring to those who call themselves liberals. I am not referring to the adjective that can be found in the dictionary, but rather the noun as it is defined by those who self identify as such in their words and actions. In truth they are progressives, which is another misleading term.

 

[PLC1]

The word itself is corrupted. When I use the term in a situation like this I am referring to those who call themselves liberals. I am not referring to the adjective that can be found in the dictionary, but rather the noun as it is defined by those who self identify as such in their words and actions. In truth they are progressives, which is another misleading term.

Yes, I agree that the word is corrupted, and that the word "progressive" can also be misleading.


Since you like to argue with liberals, and try to convince them that your way of thinking is better, I was just wondering who these liberals are that you like to convert.

Is a liberal a big government statist? Someone who wants to change the status quo? Does it have to do with so called "social conservatism", meaning gay rights and pro choice? All of the above, or none of the above?

 

[GenSeneca]

Since you like to argue with liberals, and try to convince them that your way of thinking is better, I was just wondering who these liberals are that you like to convert.

Perhaps you should re-read this part of his reply:

When I am arguing with you or any of the other liberals here or anywhere else CZ, I am not trying to convince you. I know that you cannot be convinced. I am trying to convince anybody reading the discussions

If I understand correctly, he is hoping to convince bystanders, not participants, by way of exposing the fallacious nature of his "liberal" opponents arguments.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Yes, I agree that the word is corrupted, and that the word "progressive" can also be misleading.


Since you like to argue with liberals, and try to convince them that your way of thinking is better, I was just wondering who these liberals are that you like to convert.

Is a liberal a big government statist? Someone who wants to change the status quo? Does it have to do with so called "social conservatism", meaning gay rights and pro choice? All of the above, or none of the above?

It is the ideals that I am trying to destroy PLC1, not the people who support them. I don't care if Ronald Reagan comes back from the dead and starts posting on this forum. If he argues for progressive income taxes, I will attack that position. I specify liberals/progressives, because they typically make the arguments that I am against. But don't make the mistake of thinking it is the people who I am against, it is the philosophy, and I will be against that philosophy regardless of how liberal or conservative the person supporting it is.

 

[citizenzen]

Believe it or not, I'm not hear to learn from you or any other liberal... I am here to teach CZ.

Did I ever tell you the story of the full tea cup?

This is one place that you and I differ. I'm not here to teach at all. I'm here to share a few thoughts. Whether you or I learn anything is just a bonus, and totally out of my control.

I am here to point out flaws in the logic of people making arguments that I disagree with.

I don't mind having flaws pointed out. I do mind, however, when you invent another person's thoughts. Both you and GenSen seem to make a habit of it. It's not very sporting.

If a liberal's mind is as easy to defeat as you imagine, then you shouldn't have to rush in with your concocted views of what anybody believes. Just ask them and (if you're right) they'll give you plenty of rope to hang them. By rushing in and inventing their thoughts you're denying your ability to defeat them with logic, wisdom and reason alone.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't think the war should end with all the gains on one side. I don't think that thieves should be able to keep their spoils. And I don't for single second believe that the people who raped the American economy should be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains.

Your idea appears to be that a level playing field is when on side has most of the assets.

No, you asked before and I answered before, no, no, no, the rich should not be run out of the country. Do I need to say that again? But the ones who have used their wealth to gain unethical advantage by suborning the law should be prosecuted and their assets distributed to those in need.

Quote by GenSeca]Appeal to Ridicule: a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument.

When an individual has nothing but logical fallacies to present in defense of their position, or to refute the views of their opponent, it is a sure sign that their argument is intellectually bankrupt and has either already failed, or is in the process of failing.

Nowhere have you addressed the plight of those in need. I assumed that with all these posts that if you gave a damn about them you'd have made some comment, but you have not. All you have done is argue for the rights of the rich.

 

[samsara15]

The list of things you don't know, is long and distinguished.

Back to the subject:
Well? Are the problems you listed, sufficient to justify taking away people's property rights?

What exactly are 'property rights'? Haven't some people's 'property rights', such as those of the less prosperous, already been taken away?

 

[PLC1]

It is the ideals that I am trying to destroy PLC1, not the people who support them. I don't care if Ronald Reagan comes back from the dead and starts posting on this forum. If he argues for progressive income taxes, I will attack that position. I specify liberals/progressives, because they typically make the arguments that I am against. But don't make the mistake of thinking it is the people who I am against, it is the philosophy, and I will be against that philosophy regardless of how liberal or conservative the person supporting it is.

OK, fair enough, but what are those ideals? You say that they are described by a word that has become corrupted, and I totally agree.

If you're out to target a particular philosophy, then the first step is to define just what that philosophy is, correct?

You may have in mind a definition for what constitutes liberal philosophy, but it is not a concept that everyone is going to agree on. What I was asking was what your personal definition of liberalism is.

Posted by GenSeneca

If I understand correctly, he is hoping to convince bystanders, not participants, by way of exposing the fallacious nature of his "liberal" opponents arguments.

Going back, I think you're right. Now, if those "liberals" are lost to the truth, just who are they? What is it that defines them as liberals?

 

[Capitalist Pig]

OK, fair enough, but what are those ideals? You say that they are described by a word that has become corrupted, and I totally agree.

If you're out to target a particular philosophy, then the first step is to define just what that philosophy is, correct?

You may have in mind a definition for what constitutes liberal philosophy, but it is not a concept that everyone is going to agree on. What I was asking was what your personal definition of liberalism is.

Posted by GenSeneca


Going back, I think you're right. Now, if those "liberals" are lost to the truth, just who are they? What is it that defines them as liberals?

I could write a book in answer to your question PLC1. If I had to reduce progressivism to it's core principle however, I would say this. Progressivism argues that it is the role of government to change the score after the game is played. They talk of an "even playing field" but what they really demand is an equal outcome regardless of the blood, sweat and tears that some have shed to achieve their success.

It's really hard for me to stop right there, but I am trying hard to simplify what it is that I stand against. From that root philosophy all the many tentacles of progressivism spread out. In the end Progressives believe in force to achieve these aims. Many do not realize it or are unwilling to admit this, but in the end it comes down to force, because without force nobody who can achieve on their own would submit to the chains of progressivism.