Tyranny: The greater evil behind the liberals...

Earthmother

Are they?

I don’t claim that they are right, only that I can explain why I have them and defend that view, which seems to be a bit more substantial than just saying they’re wrong without any explanation, just because you don’t like them.

Again it’s the same problem as the OP, some people want to saying they’re right or that others are wrong – but don’t want to actually have an open and honest debate on the subjects.

 

It would be helpful

Yea, I know.

Because humans are damn screwed up animals... And collectively they mostly don't even know HOW to use their intelligence. It's all laced with ego and greed and insecurity.

Death is too easy. It would be a lot harder for people to actually EVOLVE into a better way of living.

My GOAL??? How the heck do you think I would ever achieve a "goal" like THAT???? I don't control things like that. But yes, I believe this is a totally rational statement, made by someone who has been thinking about such things their whole life.

This assumes that someone actually HAS the power to effect such changes, and that the changes would be made OVER NIGHT, without any alternatives being offered, which is not at all rational or reasonable.

Here-here!!!

What's a "social Darwinist"? What color are they? What flavor? What sort of clothes do they wear? What makes these ideas qualify as a "right wing wealth supporting agenda"? WTF is a "plutocratic oligarchy"??? It's all this gobble-di-gook that completely loses my interest.

You WANT me to place labels on myself so that you can get a better picture of who you are talking to? Maybe that's the only way you can finally attempt to understand what I say. And maybe you will stop spouting fancy sounding but meaningless words...

I am:
1.a hippy - not just wearing hip clothes and smoking blunts either, not fake, but BORN that way. Musically and artistically talented, hard working......
2. A pacifist. BUT, I DO believe in standing up for yourself if necessary. Whatever occasion comes along is dealt with REALISTICALLY.
3. A freedom fighter, probably considered a revolutionary.
4. an optimist
5. a philosopher.
6. Someone who ultimately does not take much of anything TOO seriously. In other words, not ADDICTED to the way things are or the way things "should" be. I can roll with the punches, but generally tend to roll in my own direction and turn the punches into laughs.
7. very firm about doing "good" things and keeping "honor" in any situation.
8. My only ultimate goals are to make a joyful noise, put happiness and "positive expanded ideas" into peoples lives, and leave the world a better place than it was when I got here.

Now, I can't imagine what sort of labels you can put on all that. But I'm certain that you must have at least 99 questions by now. And I will repeat, ask ONE. One at a time.

I guess I should feel flattered that you think so very highly of my opinions that you are obsessed with understanding everything I think and say in great DETAIL. Maybe this list will help you.

Yes, I'm truly flattered....

But DAMN, what was this thread about again?


*

 

"Your interpretations are mostly wrong."

Are they. What did I just say? Can't accept that you might be completely misinterpreting just about every word I say? Get over it, it's true.

Don't you have any new lines? Because you have said this probably a hundred times, ad nauseum. I do not HAVE to explain any further. I am very clear. I can not help it if you have such a horrid grasp of language comprehension. If there is something you actually REALLY WANT TO KNOW, again, for the 20th time, I will tell you to ASK ONE QUESTION, something that specifically pertains to whatever the heck it is you pretend you don't understand.

 

Ari, you the other mod here? PLEASE tell Balbus to STOP talking in circles and basically being a pain in the ass, he's ruining this forum...

Thanks.

 

You must live in a very dark and sad world, Balbus...

And another thread devolves into pages of senseless babbling... (or, Balbusing?)



This should be locked, as it is so off topic.

 

Deal.

 

Earthmother and Aris

It is about people that come here to promote or support biased political viewpoints that seem to be based on flawed or irrational ideas that they don’t seem willing to debate openly and honestly.

Ghost brought this up with his attack on left wing ideas based around the pretty shaky right wing ideas of Ayn Rand.

Unwilling or unable to defend those ideas in debate he seems to have ‘done a runner’.

But as I pointed out he’s not the only person that comes to the forums promoting, propagating or supporting ideas that they don’t seem willing or able to debate in an open and honest way, because they either know or seem unwilling to accept that their ideas are deeply flawed or extremely irrational.

I see there are calls for this thread to be closed, ok I’ll try and rap it up and see if other threads can be opened to discuss things raised during the course of the thread.

 

This exactly backs up what I’ve said before about people who don’t want to learn things, presumably because they think that what they do know is enough so whats the point in learning something new or because they believe their ideas are just ‘right’ and so they don’t need to learn anything new.
I actually explained what social Darwinism was and even if that wasn’t understood a simple Google search would have provided a lot more explanations.

I explained why social Darwinist ideas were right wing and why they helped the wealth justify there position and the exploitation of others.
As to - plutocratic oligarchy – it is easy to understand to anyone with a dictionary

Plutocracy - the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy - a government or state in which the wealthy class rules - a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

Oligarchy - a form of government in which all power is vested in a few

I’ve read whole books that people have pointed out here, read thousands of articles (and then researched them) and if some new idea comes along and I enjoy it when some new idea is presented, I don’t dismiss it as gobble-di-gook and say its of no interest.

The essence of open and honest debate is learning, and questioning the opposite of debate is refusing to learn and trying to evade answering questions.

 

I don’t claim that my interpretations are right, only that I can explain why I have them and defend that view, which seems to be a bit more substantial than just saying they’re wrong without any explanation, just because you don’t like them.

All you are doing again is claim I’m wrong but without actually explaining why except that you just don’t like what I’ve said. And so in you mind it is simply ‘true’ that I’m wrong.

That is exactly the mind set that I’ve been trying to highlight in this thread, a close minded approach that dislike being questioned or contradicted but instead wishes to dictate its ideas without in opportunity to debate them.

 

earthmother

The list you gave was mostly useless as a guide to your political views and if they’re rational or not.

But I did think this was interesting because it seemed at odds with what you’ve said.

I find this very hard to square with what you’ve said – because you would seem to be happy to kill millions even billions if able.

For example if you had the power, you’d stop people having medicine that could save their lives you’d stop children have immunisation jabs to protect them from horrible diseases.

And you seem to regret not having the power to condemn all these people to death.

In fact to Earthmother it seems this mass murder is a totally rational viewpoint and if she could do it she would do it and would presumably think that would leave the world a better place than when she got there?

*

Less government, ‘telling people what to do’ so that people have to take ‘responsibility for their own lives’ – so no state provision of welfare, healthcare, social security, education or training.
Few if any of those silly regulations and laws that have an effect on wages, prices, rents, employment, health and safety and so on.

I wasn’t asking you if it was possible I was asking if this would be what you’d desire and would support if it was put forward.

But I get the feeling the answer is (as with the tax issue), yes, which would put you alongside the right social Darwinists and the right wing libertarians in pushing for things that would only increase the power of wealth.

How is pushing for making the rich more powerful and making the less fortunate and venerable poorer and more open to exploitation - leaving the world a better place than when you found it?

 

OK since it has been asked for I will now close this thread – but I’m not just going to say ‘done’ and close down anybodies right to reply.
If someone wishes to have the thread reopened they can do so by asking me by PM and I’d be happy to carry on.

 

Let it go.

 

Have done, thats why i closed it, so why did you open it again to tell me to let it go when i already had?

 

I closed it. Then you continued posting!