|
tbp posted:Regardless of my personal opinions on the matter my initial point was that you will not see a socialist society during any of our lifetimes, and I'd suspect for some vastly significant amount of time afterward. This is wrong. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_society_(Labour_Party)
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Caros, I would read your blog or whatever. I honestly wish I could sic you on on some of the folks clogging up my facebook feed, it's a pleasure to read.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
aparmenideanmonad posted:Rejection of the scientific method is not automatically ridiculous, as sometimes the brand of inductive reasoning used in science just doesn't apply. There's nothing structurally wrong with a view that has a priori axioms and involves deductive inferences from those axioms (aka, is immune to empirical falsification to some degree). Various systems in math and logic work this way and pretty much everyone agrees that they need to - scientific rigor is not some sort of final arbiter of a good theory in every single discipline. Reasoning is useful in developing systems that need to be internally consistent, but not useful in developing systems that actually mirror reality (however, once you have a system that you can be reasonable sure matches reality, you can make quite a bit of progress with logic and reasoning... but going back to make sure it still accurately mirrors once you are done is important). You can safely reject the scientific method if you're developing theoretical systems that do not seek to state that this is how things are - See: Mathematics, and how empiricism actually lead us to change many of its axioms when we started applying it to situations where it didn't map to reality. There are a whole lot of mathematical system, many quite interesting, based on axioms that are quite clearly not true of our reality. Basically, throwing away the scientific method, but using rigorous logic, let's you describe a coherent idea of how things could work, but is pretty useless in declaring how things do work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
I just had a fight with a libertarian on facebook. I accused him of being a religious zealot. He denied it saying it was a stupid accusation to make against an agnostic. I asked him why he wanted a smaller government. He refused to discuss it because, and I quote, "Going into a huge theological discussion on Facebook about the intended role of government, is not something I'm interested in getting into right now. " I point out that he apparently considers the role of government a theological issue, and his defense is "It is for everyone, it's not a gotcha statement." He actually believes this. He is not only for serious a religious zealot of a libertarian, but he literally believes that everyone who opposes him is exactly the same, and after further discussion that his opponents all support "big government" as an end in and of itself and that is why they must be opposed. It's a loving holy war for him. I mean, I was planning how this conversation was going to go for a while, because I wanted to see how one of them would react to the accusation, but this certainly wasn't the result I expected.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Shayu posted:I'm not really in favor of any restrictions with regards to wages. Shayu posted:We could employ more people and it'd be beneficial to low skilled laborers like teenagers. Shayu posted:All I'm saying is that you'd see more employment over-all in the economy, not that if you didn't have a minimum wage Walmart would suddenly want to hire an infinite amount of people. Let's see if we can't probe a bit deeper and get past the outer narrative here. You are opposed to the minimum wage. You claim you are opposed because without it we could employ more people and low skilled labourers would benefit (presumably because we WOULD employ more people) You also claim you are opposed because you'd like to see more employment overall So, taking this as a base, if we could demonstrate that a high minimum wage would lead to more employed folks than no minimum wage, would you support it? If you continue to oppose it in this scenario, why? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Just because we give them the services doesn't mean they deserve them. It actually probably annoys them even more when you tell them you explicitly know they don't deserve the service but you're going to be benevolent and extend it to them anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You're also not, as far as I know, going "I'm sure people have a right to exist but I wouldn't feel comfortable suggesting anyone in particular has to pay for it." like the oiks in the quoted exchange. To be fair the person he quoted didnt seem to be advocating that, considering he seemed to be saying people should get a living wage without relying on their employer? That we should remove not just the expectation but the dependency. Doesnt come across as very libertarian so I am guessing he isnt? And is rather the voice of reason in that conversation GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Dec 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
See if you can shift him back left by hooking him up with some libertarian socialists types to follow, especially ones that focus on the tyranny of bosses and megacorps? Before he gets even deeper
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
UBI plus public medical, education, emergency services and utilities is the nornal leftist variant but its something traditional libertarians would hate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
I had a black libertarian in my extended social circle for a few months. Only non-white right-libertarian I ever saw. I have seen a couple non-straight libertarians though.
GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Sep 10, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 05:54
|
|