|
Elysium is also very much influenced by Death of God theology. Elysium, the joy or incorruptibility to come, Heaven. Matt Damon's character ascends to heaven to bring resurrection of the body (literally so in the film) to earth, redeeming heaven and earth. A lot of people missed that I think.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Oct 21, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
Yeah, I've spent a good deal of time in the developing world but haven't seen the film. Thing is, when he contrasted the hellscape with the space world it struck me as a decent metaphor for my own experiences, especially after, say, working with migrant workers in rural Asia and coming back to a large American city where an iPhone release is news. Wealth inequality doesn't have to result in a handful of trillionaires running the game, as he suggests -- it can also be a global system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
I debated Stefan Molyneux (an anarcho capitalist) a few weeks ago and had the audacity challenge the non aggression principle and how it applies in the real world. I didn't realize it had been posted in his podcasts until recently. I don't think I did very well (he tends to dominate and is a much more experienced debater than me), but I did put him on the defensive and I might have have raised a good a point towards the end when I brought up cyclical generational theory. Unfortunately he ended it a bit too soon before we could talk about it in depth. I'm the first caller. http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2805/slander-is-the-tool-of-the-loser-saturday-call-in-show-september-27th-2014 It does make me cringe a bit at how much I stutter listening to it again, and rape comment is definitely something I regret saying, but he interrupted me before I got to finish. But it is what it is. BTW, what he says is true. If you want to debate him he does give you high priority and gets you on the call in show as quickly as possible, so feel free to have a go at him. I might not be the best guy to debate him since I actually have more libertarian leanings than many of you guys. I'm more of a left leaning skeptical libertarian. Some of you more hardcore leftists might have better prepared arguments than me. Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:I debated Stefan Molyneux (an anarcho capitalist) a few weeks ago and had the audacity challenge the non aggression principle and how it applies in the real world. I didn't realize it had been posted in his podcasts until recently. I don't think I did very well (he tends to dominate and is a much more experienced debater than me), but I did put him on the defensive and I might have have raised a good a point towards the end when I brought up cyclical generational theory. Unfortunately he ended it a bit too soon before we could talk about it in depth. Could you define hardcore leftist so I have context to understand your post?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
I nominate Caros. Do it Caros, or hang your head in shame and admit Molyneux and Libertarians are right forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I nominate Caros. I'd watch it and root for you, Caros.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I'll call in. I'll be the toilet flushing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Could you define hardcore leftist so I have context to understand your post? I guess the goto answer is a full blown Marxist, but that's probably outdated and those definitions are never clearly defined. Basically, if you consider yourself a hardcore leftist, then you are one. Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Those definitions are never clearly defined. Basically, if you consider yourself a hardcore leftist, then you are one. I cant think of anyone who does outside of ironic self awareness. Usually its used as an out group to cast projections of evil works on especially in partisan media. Basically I'm questioning if your own politics are even well defined enough, based on how you're self identifying to know a hardcore leftist when you see one. Based on my post history would you aggress enough to consider me one? I would say I'm not for a bunch of various pro capitalism reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I nominate Caros. How exactly does one have a productive debate against praxeology?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:How exactly does one have a productive debate against praxeology? Demonstrating logical inconsistencies and contradictions, I'd suspect. Or, if you'd rather get to the crux of things quicker, just punching them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I nominate Caros. I'm not sure I could refrain from calling him a megalomaniac cult leader long enough to have any sort of conversation. I really, actively hate Molyneux. That said I wouldn't want to debate Molyneux on his show primarily because of what you hear in that call. Molyneux is a cult leader and has an extremely forceful personality. If it were something like the Sam Seder vs Molyneux debate with a proper moderator, timekeeping etc I'd be in for it, but going on his show is more or less screaming at the wind. Caros fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
^^^^^^ Basically this... it would have to be a neutral location with a moderator and agenda before it would be worth the effort. Captain_Maclaine posted:Demonstrating logical inconsistencies and contradictions, I'd suspect. Or, if you'd rather get to the crux of things quicker, just punching them. The primary problem with praxeology is that even logically consistent arguments are often incongruous with empirical evidence or observed behavior. Molyneux has spent years shoring up the "logical consistency" of his positions such that he has generated a view of the world that is pure fiction. But to debate him on pure logical terms would be to concede his fiction, or bog you down in his own logical traps. You could likely win a few listeners who were on the fence, but he would hang up on you well before you could actually get him to admit anything that challenges him. And anyone listening to his podcast is not "on the fence." archangelwar fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:The primary problem with praxeology is that even logically consistent arguments are often incongruous with empirical evidence or observed behavior. Molyneux has spent years shoring up the "logical consistency" of his positions such that he has generated a view of the world that is pure fiction. But to debate him on pure logical terms would be to concede his fiction, or bog you down in his own logical traps. Pretty much this. A call in show debate isn't a debate in any true sense because the host sets all the terms and has all of the power. If you've listened to some of Molyneux's other debates he will pretty much talk/scream over you, consistently interrupt and go on pretty much forever on tangents that have nothing to do with the question he was asked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Aw. I missed Water being weirdly smug without contributing at all? That is my favorite part of D&D. Water you do know that saying "stop being a circlejerk" without contributing anything is pointless right? I bet you do but that would get in the way of your smugness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Caros posted:Pretty much this. The other problem with the call-in debate is that it doesn't exist solely in the context of a debate. When you're done, he can still go on and talk about all the things that were wrong with your argument that he couldn't explain because you wouldn't listen. All you become is your own straw man for his listeners to say "Yeah, if only he'd see things." Plus, yeah. I wouldn't want to talk to Molyneux. I mean, there's only so many times you can say "get to the loving point" before you start to sound a tad unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:The other problem with the call-in debate is that it doesn't exist solely in the context of a debate. When you're done, he can still go on and talk about all the things that were wrong with your argument that he couldn't explain because you wouldn't listen. All you become is your own straw man for his listeners to say "Yeah, if only he'd see things." Plus, yeah. I wouldn't want to talk to Molyneux. I mean, there's only so many times you can say "get to the loving point" before you start to sound a tad unreasonable. Mhmm. Don't get me wrong, I'd probably enjoy debating Molyneux in a moderated setting, or even an informal area not under his control (preferably one where he is within arms reach), but going on his show? In a twenty minute 'debate' I'll probably get to speak for about five minutes and then he will have another hour after I'm gone to try and pick apart my argument without anyone stopping him and saying 'No, that is factually untrue.' Even in the example one that was posted I can pick out about six points that I would have to interject and say "That isn't true". Since he is the host and moderator he can and will no doubt feel fully justified in telling me to stop interrupting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
It seems like a broad series of insults about Molyneux's hosed up worldview whenever you have a moment to speak, followed by an abrupt disclosure of his wife's professional issues would be the best approach. Just make him look foolish to the unconverted. It's possible, it's been done to Rush and Molyneux's a scrub tier host compared to Rush.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Could you maybe try to out Molyneux Molyneux? Go on and immediately state "If you're against taxes then you're a morally bankrupt leech on true producers like me and if you don't agree then you're too stupid to talk to.  "Probably not, but I'd laugh if someone tried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:How exactly does one have a productive debate against praxeology? Apology. You need a radical criticism that he won't recognize (and thus just tune out), that shares some common ground (so that there can be communication), and that offers more complete salvation than what praxeology offers. Three necessary parts: 1. "there must be a common basis, some mutually accepted ideas."... "If there is nothing in common between them no communication is possible" 2. "must show that in the actual ideas".. "there are defects" "One shows the negativity in the other one, as the second step of apologetics." 3. "Thirdly, one shows that one's own position is not to be accepted as something from outside, which is thrown at one's head – this is not good apologetics, throwing stones... but that X is the fulfillment of what is, as longing and desire in (in this case praxeology" In other words you need an ideology that has something in common with Austrian Economics/ Praxeology, that can radically critique Austrian Economics and strongly (and correctly) so, and that can offer what Austrian Economics offers more completely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:In other words you need an ideology that has something in common with Austrian Economics/ Praxeology, that can radically critique Austrian Economics and strongly (and correctly) so, and that can offer what Austrian Economics offers more completely. Mein kampf?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
No. Basically, there has to be talk about freedom (so as to share common ground). That can also criticize "FREEDOM", freedom treated as an absolute, as the action axiom (to show the massive problems with the basic idea of praxeology.) And this talk also has to address in a real way and to create in the world by motivating people to action the freedom it talks about. To me this means: liberal (talk about freedom as the necessary common ground) monotheistic (have no other Gods) or alternately strongly atheistic (So it can say Freedom as synthetic a priori, or perfect absolute, or idol is crap). and humanistic ( it has to be centered on addressing real human needs and struggles)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Psychohistory? I dunno, like, what is there that is similar that won't draw the same conclusions? Like, the wiki rundown seems to be all about individual preferences forming markets which are the most efficient way to sort out competing demands. Hell, it doesn't even say anything about private or personal property. Austrian market Communism? Some totalitarian organization that achieves perfect efficiency by informing consumers what their preferences are and distributing resources accordingly? Exploiting people's time preference for avoiding gruesome executions? EFB Freedom? Yeah, but I don't think they actually value it, like for poor people. edit Or like what always bothers me, for people who've already been coerced. Rockopolis fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I dunno, like, what is there that is similar that won't draw the same conclusions? Yes that is a very real danger. The alternative is only throwing stones at heads, kerygma. Proclaiming at them, preaching at them. They do a lot of that too. It ends up looking like Jrodenfeld or when it's really terrible it can look like this: shiranaihito posted:- Taxation is extortion Another way to say it, how effective are evangelicals when they go to a random place (say a amusement park) and randomly just corner people and talk about Jesus. They aren't very effective (and they (the evangelicals doing it) actually keep stats on that type of stuff too* more below), they put people off, they come off as assholes. So that's the risk of not having common ground. You end up looking like shiranaihito, or an evangelical and it's just not effective. And what I think needs to be realized is that the sophisticated ones on the libertarian side, they're already trying to do this in the opposite direction. This process is already being aimed at us and our society. Rich libertarians are literally funding "science of freedom research projects" to do apology towards an end of conversion. They also do this by creating theonomous** situations. And they've been doing it for decades! There is a response and that response is apology. But to really do that honestly creates the risks inherent in having common ground with people one fundamentally disagrees with, which is the risk of losing one's own conclusions and beliefs. The risk of losing one's own way of defining meaning and interpreting reality. And I don't mean all this in just terms of abstractly thinking about it and arguing in threads like these. I mean in the sense of living life in that way, it has to be real. * You can look at something like Campus Crusade for Christ. The keep record of the number of times the spiel is given, number of times it was listened to, number of times there was interest, and number of times people "gave their lives to Jesus" That last one (the one they really care about) is often in the sub 1% range. If they've been really good about preselecting an audience (say they are looking to convert from another Christian denomination) they might get up near 4-5% ** By theonomous I mean they set up structures in the real world that imply a final conclusion (their variant of libertarianism) to the people who participate in those structures. Think George Mason University, think Fox News, think think tanks, think young entrepreneurs scholarship programs
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Or like what always bothers me, for people who've already been coerced. This is what really tips their hand that their philosophy is about protecting and perpetuating a landed gentry rather than any commitment to liberty. If Libertarians actually cared about property rights, freedom, and absolute non-aggression they would be very concerned with righting the wrongs of past aggression, yet...they're not. If I come to your island with weapons, take your land and goods, dispossess you of everything, cast you out on the beach with nothing but your clothes and then have a change of heart and say "I'm sorry about all that. It was wrong to steal, let's you and I agree never to use force again. You are trespassing, but I'll even let you stay if you work for me on my terms" it would be ridiculous to believe that from here on out wealth will accrue to whichever of us is the most talented and the balance will be righted. No one watching would say something so ludicrous as "Well look 20 years on VitalSigns still owns nearly all the wealth, so that just shows he's the most talented and would have gotten it in free exchange even if he hadn't taken it by conquest in the first place." Yet this is exactly how Libertarians treat the wealth chasm between the descendants of colonizers and slavers, and the descendents of the dispossessed and enslaved. "Gee, it sure is a shame about all that wealth confiscation in the past that was wrong, but we can't pay reparations now because that requires compensation which is wrong. Oh well!" It's the same old apologism for oligarchy, just dressed up in the vocabulary of America's civic religion of Liberty and Freedom. It's no coincidence that Libertarian thought only emerged during the Civil Rights Era from the same populations that were 100% on board with state aggression when it was benefiting them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
So is Ted Cruz basically a mix between Huey Long and Frank Underwood?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So is Ted Cruz basically a mix between Huey Long and Frank Underwood? Not sure this was in the right thread. I'd say he is more of a mix between a retarded koala bear and an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Would said question better suit the Texan thread? I thought Ted Cruz was reported to be a pretty big libertarian, as well as head teabagger and massive twat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Would said question better suit the Texan thread? I thought Ted Cruz was reported to be a pretty big libertarian, as well as head teabagger and massive twat. Of all the things I've heard about Cruz's politics, libertarian hasn't been one of them. Far-right nutjob screaming "Ayn Rand Akbar" sounds about right, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Would said question better suit the Texan thread? I thought Ted Cruz was reported to be a pretty big libertarian, as well as head teabagger and massive twat. All of the above are true save for the libertarian. While I have no doubt he probably jerks off to objectivist garbage in private, Ted Cruz doesn't really display and of the trends you'd expect from someone with really strongly held libertarian beliefs. Anti-immigrant, anti-drug, pro-war and so forth. The only thing he really has in common is that he wants to shrink the government, and my money would be on that being a neo-confederate style 'states rights' argument than a libertarian one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Caros posted:Anti-immigrant, anti-drug, pro-war and so forth. The only thing he really has in common is that he wants to shrink the government, and my money would be on that being a neo-confederate style 'states rights' argument than a libertarian one. I was under the impression that this was the modern American Libertarian in a nutshell. The meanings of labels can change, just like "conservative" has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:I was under the impression that this was the modern American Libertarian in a nutshell. The meanings of labels can change, just like "conservative" has. Not really, no. Ted Cruz is bog standard Tea Party nut job through and through which means he is largely just a reactionary hard-right politician. A good example of someone with libertarian leanings in congress would be someone closer to Rand Paul. Rand Paul espouses a lot of the libertarian viewpoints, End the drug war, stop most foreign interventions, end the civil rights act etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Ted Cruz will borrow the Libertarian freedom-means-no-taxes-no-social-services line whenever it supports his particular brand of theocratic plutocracy but he's obviously not a proponent of the NAP by any means. Rand and Ron Paul aren't really libertarian either. They're both totally cool with Jim Crow, abortion bans, and gay-bashing just as long as it's reserved to the states where their reactionary religious and racial policies can win in the south. It's only tyranny when the federal government aggresses against the states' property interest in women and blacks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ted Cruz will borrow the Libertarian freedom-means-no-taxes-no-social-services line whenever it supports his particular brand of theocratic plutocracy but he's obviously not a proponent of the NAP by any means. They are Hans Hermann Hoppe style libertarians in my book. They want to just shrink things down to state, local/whatever governments so that they can go back to having slaves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Caros posted:All of the above are true save for the libertarian. While I have no doubt he probably jerks off to objectivist garbage in private, Ted Cruz doesn't really display and of the trends you'd expect from someone with really strongly held libertarian beliefs. Anti-immigrant, anti-drug, pro-war and so forth. The only thing he really has in common is that he wants to shrink the government, and my money would be on that being a neo-confederate style 'states rights' argument than a libertarian one. Funny, I thought neo-confederacy and libertarianism in the south was one and the same. Am I wrong? Then again, if Ted Cruz is craving a neo-confederacy (which I suspect of ALL teabaggers), I guess that makes him...fair game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Funny, I thought neo-confederacy and libertarianism in the south was one and the same. Am I wrong? I'd say its like squares and rectangles... but even then there isn't an 'always' overlap. Generally speaking there is a lot of crossover, but it isn't enough of a thing to say that it is universal. But yeah, Ted Cruz is an rear end in a top hat, just not a libertarian one as far as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Caros posted:All of the above are true save for the libertarian. While I have no doubt he probably jerks off to objectivist garbage in private, Ted Cruz doesn't really display and of the trends you'd expect from someone with really strongly held libertarian beliefs. Anti-immigrant, anti-drug, pro-war and so forth. The only thing he really has in common is that he wants to shrink the government, and my money would be on that being a neo-confederate style 'states rights' argument than a libertarian one. Whatever it is that Ted Cruz jerks off to in private, I doubt it is something that the average human being could learn of and remain sane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Funny, I thought neo-confederacy and libertarianism in the south was one and the same. Am I wrong? The common thread between conservatives of the post George W Bush world, objectivism and libertarianism is whom their policies as stated would most likely benefit. The world is Just, it has been, it must always be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Whatever it is that Ted Cruz jerks off to in private, I doubt it is something that the average human being could learn of and remain sane. Now I'm just getting an image of some sort of twisted Bas-Relief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Whatever it is that Ted Cruz jerks off to in private, I doubt it is something that the average human being could learn of and remain sane. It's got to be a photo of himself, let's be serious here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:58
|
|