Political Compass
- Thread starter turbolapp
- Start date
I don't think I made an appeal to authority, I certainly haven't personalized the debate. Others have (as you are now). If I have said something wrong, correct it. I'm not wedded to bad ideas, but I'm not going to accept the premise that my arguments are wrong because I made them.
Not at all. Let's learn something together. Show me where I am wrong.
This is just more Ad Hom. Like I said, you win.
I'm not interested in personal attacks or who can drop the best/most insults.
Well, let's call it a day then, because I allowed myself to be sucked into this by turbo, and I would much rather make a profit, than debate logic with someone who wants to hit people with a stick so it sinks in.
Peace and no hard feelings on my end. Anyone who would like to continue this debate, PM me for my AIM.
Semantics, playing dumb does not help your case. Firstly, the actual argument was that that the same kind of isolationism/non-interventionism is possible and even desirable for other countries, like say the US. But the reality is that Switzerland is a very special case for reasons given above so does not fit into the framework of that argument.
Secondly, the whole point of my argument was that Switzerland does NOT CHOOSE its so called neutrality. The more powerful neighbours chose that for it. Hence my argument, which the example of Switzerland was supposed to refute, still stands. A nation can choose to imitate Switzerland, but it will only fail, unless every other nation it deals with decides its their own personal interest. For a country of any significant size and any significant trade links this is impossible.
Thirdly, technically they are not even non-interventionist, considering they have troops in Afghanistan and other places.
Not surprised you didn't understand my argument though, you seem to have trouble when its longer then 2 lines.
lol
This is on their site :
In their "reading list" they have Ron Paul as "libertarian right."
So "Anarchism" might be a better label for them to use in their charts.
"If I'm not infallible, prove it."
I reject your hypothesis that your opinions are right and therefore must be proven wrong. All you've done in this thread is counter others arguments by turning their words against them, as I have done to you now above.
I don't think you should invalidate your own ideas because they are your own. I am suggesting that you have come to the conclusion that all ideas, that are your own, are right because you wouldn't believe something that is wrong.
"This quiz is wrong because it doesn't hold the same conception of libertarianism as I do because I can definitively define libertarianism."
"Remember, you are a foolish mortal. Let me enlighten you. The mainstream political rectum would be 100% authoritarian because it seems that way to me. Do you see now?"
"These graphs don't agree with my conception of Hitler being 100% this and Stalin 100% that so they are wrong."
"Everything is socialism hurrr durrr."
It's not outrageous to point of the obvious, but if the obvious to you is that we live in a democracy and your vote is the evidence of this then, yes that is outrageous. Politicians do whatever pleases them in between elections and when we do get the chance to vote on a bill it is only after politicians have decided that this is the bill we will vote on. The choices have already been made the only questions is do you agree.
Also you argue about what is just or unjust what is socialism or isn't what is liberty or isn't as if these terms are static and equally understood as the same thing by everyone. This is the source of your arguments from authority. Assuming that your definition of these terms is the right one. Among other things.
lol
This is on their site :
In their "reading list" they have Ron Paul as "libertarian right."
So "Anarchism" might be a better label for them to use in their charts.
There's no way in hell I'm that close to Kucinich. I can accept where I'm plotted, but not so much where he is. And Nader's only halfway across(on the x axis) the bottom left quadrant? Something's fishy.
Seriously, am I gonna get rebilled?
This thread has really clarified things.
It seems the majority here in WF have libertarian tendencies.
The few that don't... hellblazer, sup3r, couple others so far..are the one's I find myself disagreeing with the most. It all makes sense now...
It seems the majority here in WF have libertarian tendencies.
The few that don't... hellblazer, sup3r, couple others so far..are the one's I find myself disagreeing with the most. It all makes sense now...
Everyone knows this test is bullshit. There's too few questions each with too heavy of a weight, and its written in such a way that if you didn't come out of it as a libertarian, its just because you're an idiot or completely uneducated on the issues.
Edit: it doesn't matter which of the above quizzes either. The advocates for self government one just admits their bias.
Questions like this in the politcal compass one though:
Edit: it doesn't matter which of the above quizzes either. The advocates for self government one just admits their bias.
Questions like this in the politcal compass one though:
Well, that might be sort of true. Its more because there's no property rights assigned to the environment that they maybe sorta require regulation... better yet would be to assign property rights to the environment though... and I can't agree that they require regulation unless I can agree that the government can efficiently regulate... I cannot answer that question because its not clear what it is asking me. It is trying to judge how left/anti-corporation/"green" I am, but doing so in a way that makes any answer I give meaningless.
I'm neither qualified to answer that nor is the judgment this stupid quiz going to make on me for answering it relevant. "Have to"? Probably not, their kids could grow up as brats if they don't... but even that's not likely. This is a stupid question. If you want to ask, ask "do you think spanking children should be illegal" or something... but ideally, don't even ask; its a stupid issue. Let parents parent within reason. Spanking seems within reason to me. Children is a hard issue for me/most libertarians though.
A one-party state avoids almost all arguments, I think? That doesn't make it an "advantage" though... what the heck.
God: extreme top right
Uptight bastard who wants to control everything, including who you fuck, what you eat and who/what you kill. (like a conservatard)
Jesus: extreme bottom left
Left wing hippy douche who wants to share, get along(turn the other cheek, live by the sword, die by the sword), help the sick and poor while wearing roman sandals and sporting long hair and a beard.
Children always try to be the opposite of what their parents are like.
Jesus' rebellion was probably a little more extreme and angst ridden because he actually was his own father, so he had to over-compensate in his rebellious ways.
Originally Posted by guerilla
If I have said something wrong, correct it. Show me where I am wrong.
But that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is, stop attacking me the person, and point out where my argument is wrong. If you feel the burden of proof is on me to prove my position, say so, and if we can agree the burden is on me (when I claim something positively) then I will have to meet it.
But you haven't, all you have done is what dispel did. Strawman my position by rephrasing what I wrote.
I'm not claiming my opinions are right. I am claiming my arguments are right. They aren't the same thing. Now if you disagree, please counter my arguments, or establish the burden of proof on me. That's how the discussion advances.
That is another strawman. I've never claimed that. Nor do I claim it now.
I have believed a lot of wrong things. I probably still believe wrong things. I will probably die believing wrong things. Your assertion doesn't have merit.
But you're still attacking me, and not my argument.
I do believe I can definitively define libertarianism, by using the definitions of other notable libertarians and the core philosophical ideas behind those definitions. It's not my own unique definition I am advancing.
This is another attack on me, not an argument against my definition.
You're rephrasing me in a strawman again. Why is my statement not clear enough, that you can just dispute its validity? Why do you have to rephrase it to something different, to not make any argument what so ever?
Another attack on me, another avoidance of arguing what I have written.
Same thing, strawman and ad hom. Still no argument.
The terms may not be understood by everyone equally, but do I bear the burden of defining every term, and checking to see if every reader, lurker or poster is sufficiently knowledgeable? That's where debate comes in if we have a conflict in understanding.
You misunderstand an argument from authority. An argument from authority isn't,
"that arrogant prick guerilla said something, and he seems damn confident he is right"
it is
"that arrogant prick guerilla said something, and he says it is right because he is guerilla and guerilla is awesome."
I'm not claiming to be an authority, and so my same arguments could be advanced by a retarded monkey, or the world's smartest man, and that wouldn't change their validity. They are either true or not, and you only made one small attempt in a paragraph I didn't quote to actually address what I have said.
If you'd like sources, or an excellent working definition of libertarianism, or you would just like to chat about this further, I would be happy to do so. Maybe out of the limelight, you won't feel the need to attack me, and can instead attack my ideas. I don't claim to be good for much, but I think these ideas, of which most are derived from better people than me, are pretty darn good. And maybe under better circumstances you will think so to. Or maybe you will teach me something new by exposing my error or perspective I didn't have before. Either way, seems like the potential for a win-win scenario.
Thanks for listening.