Political Compass
- Thread starter turbolapp
- Start date
I didn't say I liked them very much. I like them all about 65%.(not as people, though, as people they're usually horrible creatures) It's just that I don't know of any others that I like as much or more.
So I like more of them, but I like them each less. There will probably never be a politician that I will be in love with.
An obvious argument, but its the exception that proves the rule. The recent history of Switzerland is to an extent explained by its geography. Partly because of the security provided to it by mountains but more so because of its neighborhood. It is a tiny country, with no resources and no hope of projecting its power outward therefore it seeks stability through other means. Actually it is simply lucky that its bigger neighbours, at whose mercy it has been, choose to leave it alone, for reasons outlined below.
But thats kind of ending. For example since the GFC other nations have forced it to change its economic policies and stop being a tax haven. And there is nothing it can do about that.
By the way, their troops are currently in Afghanistan, Kosovo and South Korea, as they are part of the UN. Also, they were quite militant until the 20th century. And their troops are still deployed in the Vatican - its their job to protect the Pope - a powerful ally to have. They have a long tradition of being mercenaries.
Anyway, to put it bluntly, Switzerland is anyone's bitch, its just that the more powerful have chosen to leave it alone, for various reasons, at least in the 20th century. This explains it better:
(subscription content, so cant just give a link)
Free Article for Non-Members | STRATFOR
I tend to equate any kind of Utopianism with idiocy. It is actually naivete, but I prefer to wield a bigger stick, it sinks in better.
These questions blow. Here's a much shorter one, without the leading questions: http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
What's utopian about it? I'm under no illusions that it is possible to have a world where everyone minds their Ps and Qs at all times, but I don't turn around and use that as a justification to loot other people's property and bully them.
Is it really so outrageous to point out the obvious? Politicians are elected to make laws and govern over people and property. And democracy enables political decisions which reflect mass opinion, even if it violates what are understood to be fundamental human rights. If enough people want to treat blacks like slaves, in a democracy, blacks will be slaves, or the politicians will be replaced each election until they make it so.
I don't feel threatened by the complexity of the world. I think arguments to complexity are disingenuous. If the world is too complex for me to understand, how can I be qualified to vote and choose someone else to handle such complexity? So we've just undermined the premise of a democracy again if we accept your "complex world" argument.
On the contrary, understanding the basics of liberty, which is property/self-ownership is pretty basic and intuitive. Even small children understand the concept of mine and thine at an early age.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEZBIhaZW9w"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
The use of strawmen and ad hominem are just logical fallacies. You might display a big epenis, but as far as making a rational argument, you are starting with fallacious premises, which means your argument can't be true, even if I don't respond.
I stopped the old internet flamewar game awhile back when I learned how to debate, and why honest debate is important. You're welcome to win every flamewar. I have little interest in "winning" or being the biggest epenis on the block. Hit me with your stick. Make it sink in. At the end of the day, you still can't be right with flawed arguments.
You've misused that term.
The exception proves that the rule applies to everything but such exceptions. It's a form of negative argumentation.
So that means, your rule doesn't apply to states which employ non-intervention because Switzerland is a state which does employ non-intervention.
Exception that proves the rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See "loose rhetorical sense" because it applies to your usage.
I think that's good, because I would argue that it is never good to love someone who holds power over you.
Ok, I've misused the term in a loosely rhetorical sense, but that has nothing to do with the argument, which you've side-stepped here by basically changing the subject. Perhaps you will correct my grammar next as your 'counter-argument'?
Speaking of flawed arguments. All of your's seem to be appealing to authority, your own, legitimized and recognized by yourself alone.
You are unwilling to consider other points as you have already crowned your own the best.
You didn't love your parents as a child? Or is the problem that they didn't love you, hence your childish sweeping rejection of all authority?
You think your wife/gf/bf has no power over you?
Power over others is a natural aspect of human existence. As is love. In fact they go hand in hand. Anyone you love has power over you, as in love is vulnerability and trust.
I am not having a flame war, its more unsuppressed contempt. I believe you're too bone-headed to be swayed by logical arguments. You're merely being indulged in this 'debate' for the sake of my personal self-indulgence.
Well, it did have to do with the argument. I showed Switzerland, and you actually made my point, by declaring it is the exception which proves the rule. I'm not disagreeing with you, I am agreeing with you. You refuted yourself.