Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Phony Progressives

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:55:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A lot of people call themselves progressives or count themselves a part of the progressive movement.

But, I would like to identify two kinds of people that often call themselves progressive but really are the opposite.

The first is the multiculturalist. I have written about this before. To summarize, multicultaralist progressives claim to believe in feminism, egalitarianism, freedom of speech, and other supposed progressive values. Yet, they passionatley defend cultures, such as the Islamic culture, that are extremely unequal, misogynistic, totalitarian, and undemocratic. Anyone who points this out is accused of being "racist" or culturally "imperialistic" by the supposed progressive multicultarilists.

They abandon their own supposed progressivism in the name of diversity and political correctness. Multiculturalists are faux progressives and are really among the most regressive political groups in society because they are willing to undue decades of progress just to "respect" lesser cultures.

The second group of phony progressives is anti capitalists (or socialists or statists). This group is just as bad. This group tends to have very innaccurate views of history. For instance, they will often say, falsely, that capitalism perpetuated or caused slavery when in fact capitalism came about after slavery and played a key role in the ending of slavery.

They ignore how capitalism and economic freedom tend to lead to things like freedom of speech and democratic systems of government. Not to mention the incredible progress in living standards brought about the capitalism.

Free market capitalism is the most progressive economic system. Yet, supposed progressives constantly advocate shacking it with large welfare states, high amounts of regulations, and state ownership of some industries. It is amazing.

I am a true progressive. I believe in western culture, with its progressive values, and free market capitalism, with its incredible ability to bring about progress.

The people who claim to be progressives are really just statist multiculturalists... They are hypocrites who have hijacked the word progress.

To summarize, the truly progressive system is one of western values and free market capitalism and the truly regressive system is one of toleration of backwards cultures (multicultarism) and anti market economics.

Ironic how the people who call themselves progressives are the least progressive of all.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:13:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:55:09 PM, BigRat wrote:
A lot of people call themselves progressives or count themselves a part of the progressive movement.

But, I would like to identify two kinds of people that often call themselves progressive but really are the opposite.

The first is the multiculturalist. I have written about this before. To summarize, multicultaralist progressives claim to believe in feminism, egalitarianism, freedom of speech, and other supposed progressive values. Yet, they passionatley defend cultures, such as the Islamic culture, that are extremely unequal, misogynistic, totalitarian, and undemocratic. Anyone who points this out is accused of being "racist" or culturally "imperialistic" by the supposed progressive multicultarilists.

They abandon their own supposed progressivism in the name of diversity and political correctness. Multiculturalists are faux progressives and are really among the most regressive political groups in society because they are willing to undue decades of progress just to "respect" lesser cultures.

The second group of phony progressives is anti capitalists (or socialists or statists). This group is just as bad. This group tends to have very innaccurate views of history. For instance, they will often say, falsely, that capitalism perpetuated or caused slavery when in fact capitalism came about after slavery and played a key role in the ending of slavery.

They ignore how capitalism and economic freedom tend to lead to things like freedom of speech and democratic systems of government. Not to mention the incredible progress in living standards brought about the capitalism.

Free market capitalism is the most progressive economic system. Yet, supposed progressives constantly advocate shacking it with large welfare states, high amounts of regulations, and state ownership of some industries. It is amazing.

I am a true progressive. I believe in western culture, with its progressive values, and free market capitalism, with its incredible ability to bring about progress.

The people who claim to be progressives are really just statist multiculturalists... They are hypocrites who have hijacked the word progress.

To summarize, the truly progressive system is one of western values and free market capitalism and the truly regressive system is one of toleration of backwards cultures (multicultarism) and anti market economics.

Ironic how the people who call themselves progressives are the least progressive of all.

I agree Rat, people only subscribe to historical revisionism out of arrogance and stubbornness. Instead of changing their ideology to fit history and facts, they try to change facts and history to fit their ideology.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 11:06:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Free market Capitalism is a progressive economic system that does deliver higher living standards over time while protecting civil liberties and individual rights.

I didn't think that the ad hom arguments were needed though.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:17:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:13:18 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:55:09 PM, BigRat wrote:
A lot of people call themselves progressives or count themselves a part of the progressive movement.

But, I would like to identify two kinds of people that often call themselves progressive but really are the opposite.

The first is the multiculturalist. I have written about this before. To summarize, multicultaralist progressives claim to believe in feminism, egalitarianism, freedom of speech, and other supposed progressive values. Yet, they passionatley defend cultures, such as the Islamic culture, that are extremely unequal, misogynistic, totalitarian, and undemocratic. Anyone who points this out is accused of being "racist" or culturally "imperialistic" by the supposed progressive multicultarilists.

They abandon their own supposed progressivism in the name of diversity and political correctness. Multiculturalists are faux progressives and are really among the most regressive political groups in society because they are willing to undue decades of progress just to "respect" lesser cultures.

The second group of phony progressives is anti capitalists (or socialists or statists). This group is just as bad. This group tends to have very innaccurate views of history. For instance, they will often say, falsely, that capitalism perpetuated or caused slavery when in fact capitalism came about after slavery and played a key role in the ending of slavery.

They ignore how capitalism and economic freedom tend to lead to things like freedom of speech and democratic systems of government. Not to mention the incredible progress in living standards brought about the capitalism.

Free market capitalism is the most progressive economic system. Yet, supposed progressives constantly advocate shacking it with large welfare states, high amounts of regulations, and state ownership of some industries. It is amazing.

I am a true progressive. I believe in western culture, with its progressive values, and free market capitalism, with its incredible ability to bring about progress.

The people who claim to be progressives are really just statist multiculturalists... They are hypocrites who have hijacked the word progress.

To summarize, the truly progressive system is one of western values and free market capitalism and the truly regressive system is one of toleration of backwards cultures (multicultarism) and anti market economics.

Ironic how the people who call themselves progressives are the least progressive of all.



I agree Rat, people only subscribe to historical revisionism out of arrogance and stubbornness. Instead of changing their ideology to fit history and facts, they try to change facts and history to fit their ideology.

Very true.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:18:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 11:06:18 AM, Contra wrote:
Free market Capitalism is a progressive economic system that does deliver higher living standards over time while protecting civil liberties and individual rights.

I didn't think that the ad hom arguments were needed though.

I obviously agree with you on free market capitalism

There weren't any ad hominems in this post. An ad hominem isn't attacking a certain group of people (which I was doing).

An ad hominem is saying that a certain argument is false because of chracteristics of the person arguing it (which I was not doing).
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:57:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:18:09 PM, BigRat wrote:
There weren't any ad hominems in this post. An ad hominem isn't attacking a certain group of people (which I was doing).

Uh, you were attacking a strawman. And that is an ad hominem.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:39:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:57:28 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:18:09 PM, BigRat wrote:
There weren't any ad hominems in this post. An ad hominem isn't attacking a certain group of people (which I was doing).

Uh, you were attacking a strawman. And that is an ad hominem.

Ya. I wish it was a strawman. But, unfortunatley, this is a real group. And, you obviously don't know what ad hominem is.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:43:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:39:54 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:57:28 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:18:09 PM, BigRat wrote:
There weren't any ad hominems in this post. An ad hominem isn't attacking a certain group of people (which I was doing).

Uh, you were attacking a strawman. And that is an ad hominem.

Ya. I wish it was a strawman. But, unfortunatley, this is a real group. And, you obviously don't know what ad hominem is.

I'm a progressive, and I don't think much of what you typed was indicative of my beliefs or behaviors. Anyway, the definition of ad hominem:
"Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain."
which is kind of what you're doing when you consider all you've done is pick straws from the progressive archetype you built.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 8:20:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:43:20 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:39:54 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:57:28 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:18:09 PM, BigRat wrote:
There weren't any ad hominems in this post. An ad hominem isn't attacking a certain group of people (which I was doing).

Uh, you were attacking a strawman. And that is an ad hominem.

Ya. I wish it was a strawman. But, unfortunatley, this is a real group. And, you obviously don't know what ad hominem is.

I'm a progressive, and I don't think much of what you typed was indicative of my beliefs or behaviors. Anyway, the definition of ad hominem:
"Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain."
which is kind of what you're doing when you consider all you've done is pick straws from the progressive archetype you built.

First, you do not represent all progressives. For someone who talks a lot about fallacies, you should know about the availability heuristic. Plenty of progressives are just as I describe... perhaps you are different.

And, ad hominem is only a fallacy if I say that characteristics of the person making a certain argument disqualify their argument. If I simply attack the characteristics of a certain group, that is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is attacking a group. But, attacking a group in and of itself is not a fallacy.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 8:39:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 8:20:35 PM, BigRat wrote:

And, ad hominem is only a fallacy if I say that characteristics of the person making a certain argument disqualify their argument. If I simply attack the characteristics of a certain group, that is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is attacking a group. But, attacking a group in and of itself is not a fallacy.

This is true.

If I try and disqualify an argument based on the person's characteristics themselves, it would be ad hominem. For example, if I try to discredit an argument because the dude is wearing a purple tie or has an annoying voice, that is ad hominem.

However, for most progressives, they think their policies would help society as a whole. While I almost fully disagree (unemployment insurance, the civil rights act are both good policies), I try and respect their views, which you have been doing.

Free markets rise the standards of living in a society. People act in their self interest and unduly benefit others.

The car manufacturer must have an efficient production process so that prices remain low and overall profits are higher. Innovation is incentivized naturally. The best car producer wins.

By investing in capital goods and the process of manufacturing, productivity skyrockets over time. Wages correlate with this through the competition for labor. So, take home pay goes up.

Redistribution distorts the incentives to work hard, earn an honest living, and to become self reliant. It is tragic, and everyone deserves better. The poor should live in a nation that promotes prosperity through policies like tax relief which strongly facilitates job creation, innovation, and broad economic growth.
--------------------

Libertarians are *usually* better with economics, but liberals are better when it comes to compassion. Libertarians need to catch up, as a vision of laissez faire economics and social freedom strengthen the ladder of upward mobility and opportunity from which humanity can prosper and thrive.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 9:05:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 8:39:42 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/5/2013 8:20:35 PM, BigRat wrote:

And, ad hominem is only a fallacy if I say that characteristics of the person making a certain argument disqualify their argument. If I simply attack the characteristics of a certain group, that is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is attacking a group. But, attacking a group in and of itself is not a fallacy.

This is true.

If I try and disqualify an argument based on the person's characteristics themselves, it would be ad hominem. For example, if I try to discredit an argument because the dude is wearing a purple tie or has an annoying voice, that is ad hominem.

However, for most progressives, they think their policies would help society as a whole. While I almost fully disagree (unemployment insurance, the civil rights act are both good policies), I try and respect their views, which you have been doing.

Free markets rise the standards of living in a society. People act in their self interest and unduly benefit others.

The car manufacturer must have an efficient production process so that prices remain low and overall profits are higher. Innovation is incentivized naturally. The best car producer wins.

By investing in capital goods and the process of manufacturing, productivity skyrockets over time. Wages correlate with this through the competition for labor. So, take home pay goes up.

Redistribution distorts the incentives to work hard, earn an honest living, and to become self reliant. It is tragic, and everyone deserves better. The poor should live in a nation that promotes prosperity through policies like tax relief which strongly facilitates job creation, innovation, and broad economic growth.
--------------------

Libertarians are *usually* better with economics, but liberals are better when it comes to compassion. Libertarians need to catch up, as a vision of laissez faire economics and social freedom strengthen the ladder of upward mobility and opportunity from which humanity can prosper and thrive.

I agree (although unemployment insurance should be reformed to reduce perverse incentives for work).

Libertarians don't always get the whole compassion thing. They focus on getting the facts right and on showing their ideas are superior in empirical and logical ways (which I am glad of).

However, liberals often use compassion which appeals to people more than facts and figures. Libertarians try to appeal to the head while liberals appeal to the heart. The head makes for better policy but the heart makes for better politics.

Libertarians need to learn how to appeal to compassion. Most of the libertarins who get this are themselves former liberals. I am a former liberal and you seem like one too. Am I right?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 12:15:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:55:09 PM, BigRat wrote:
A lot of people call themselves progressives or count themselves a part of the progressive movement.

But, I would like to identify two kinds of people that often call themselves progressive but really are the opposite.

The first is the multiculturalist. I have written about this before. To summarize, multicultaralist progressives claim to believe in feminism, egalitarianism, freedom of speech, and other supposed progressive values. Yet, they passionatley defend cultures, such as the Islamic culture, that are extremely unequal, misogynistic, totalitarian, and undemocratic. Anyone who points this out is accused of being "racist" or culturally "imperialistic" by the supposed progressive multicultarilists.

In Germany, if someone's child is misbehaving in public, anyone and everyone feels free to reprimand that child, even if the parents are present and close by the child.

Now, if I were here and that sh!t happened to me and my child (were I to have one, which hopefully I never will), Mr. or Mrs. Kraut would find my size 11 foot up their @ss.

HOWEVER, were I in Germany and this happened, because that is a part of their culture, of which I am an outsider, not understanding in the evolution of this behavior, I would accept it, because I have no right to tell other people how their culture should or should not be.

Islam is NOT inherently misogynistic. Iran, for instance, used to be a feminist paradise in the middle east...and then The US instituted the Shah and things went to sh!t for women.

You should really understand something before you pop off on it.

They abandon their own supposed progressivism in the name of diversity and political correctness. Multiculturalists are faux progressives and are really among the most regressive political groups in society because they are willing to undue decades of progress just to "respect" lesser cultures.

You prefer regressivism?

Also, what gives you the right to call a culture "lesser"? What makes your ideas about how you want your culture to be better than how other people in their culture what their culture to be.

We have no right to push our morals on people in sovereign nations. Believing in self-government doesn't make one a phony. It makes one consistent.

The second group of phony progressives is anti capitalists (or socialists or statists). This group is just as bad. This group tends to have very innaccurate views of history. For instance, they will often say, falsely, that capitalism perpetuated or caused slavery when in fact capitalism came about after slavery and played a key role in the ending of slavery.

You're sh!tting me, right? Capitalism didn't come about after slavery in the US. Even if you believe that Capitalism began after Adam Smith's seminal work, Wealth of Nations, that book was published in 1776. Correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. "Accurate History", but slavery was alive and well at the birth of our nation, was it not?

That being said, Capitalism wasn't "invented" by Smith. It was DISCOVERED by him. He observed how the economy worked and he published his observations. Capitalism, as well as Socialism (because the same applies to Marx/Engels), have been in existence as long as societies have existed beyond the hunter/gatherer stage.

They ignore how capitalism and economic freedom tend to lead to things like freedom of speech and democratic systems of government. Not to mention the incredible progress in living standards brought about the capitalism.

Capitalism has it's pluses and minuses. I acknowledge the pluses. People like you don't acknowledge the minuses. Who is ignoring what, again?

Free market capitalism is the most progressive economic system. Yet, supposed progressives constantly advocate shacking it with large welfare states, high amounts of regulations, and state ownership of some industries. It is amazing.

No it's not. Social Capitalism is.

I am a true progressive. I believe in western culture, with its progressive values, and free market capitalism, with its incredible ability to bring about progress.

And yet, with all these advantages, you don't know sh!t (see above).

The people who claim to be progressives are really just statist multiculturalists... They are hypocrites who have hijacked the word progress.

As opposed to an idiot who doesn't know what it means?

To summarize, the truly progressive system is one of western values and free market capitalism and the truly regressive system is one of toleration of backwards cultures (multicultarism) and anti market economics.

Says you. Given how little you understand, even about the origins of your own political beliefs, I'm gonna choose to ignore your ideas and ridicule you until something intelligent emanates from your general direction. (I'm not holding my breath there...)

Ironic how the people who call themselves progressives are the least progressive of all.

Given that you just called yourself progressive, I guess we're in the Double Irony round now, huh?

I'll take F*cking Idiots on a Rant for $1200, Alex.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:37:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 12:15:53 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:55:09 PM, BigRat wrote:
A lot of people call themselves progressives or count themselves a part of the progressive movement.

But, I would like to identify two kinds of people that often call themselves progressive but really are the opposite.

The first is the multiculturalist. I have written about this before. To summarize, multicultaralist progressives claim to believe in feminism, egalitarianism, freedom of speech, and other supposed progressive values. Yet, they passionatley defend cultures, such as the Islamic culture, that are extremely unequal, misogynistic, totalitarian, and undemocratic. Anyone who points this out is accused of being "racist" or culturally "imperialistic" by the supposed progressive multicultarilists.

In Germany, if someone's child is misbehaving in public, anyone and everyone feels free to reprimand that child, even if the parents are present and close by the child.

Now, if I were here and that sh!t happened to me and my child (were I to have one, which hopefully I never will), Mr. or Mrs. Kraut would find my size 11 foot up their @ss.

HOWEVER, were I in Germany and this happened, because that is a part of their culture, of which I am an outsider, not understanding in the evolution of this behavior, I would accept it, because I have no right to tell other people how their culture should or should not be.

Islam is NOT inherently misogynistic. Iran, for instance, used to be a feminist paradise in the middle east...and then The US instituted the Shah and things went to sh!t for women.

You should really understand something before you pop off on it.

Malcolm, why do you bring your stupidity to my threads?

Also, MichaelGonzales, take note. You said progressives didn't actually believe thiese things... look at our stupid friend Malcolm. He does.

As usual, Malcolm, you have spent a lot of time typing while literally not refuting anything I said.


They abandon their own supposed progressivism in the name of diversity and political correctness. Multiculturalists are faux progressives and are really among the most regressive political groups in society because they are willing to undue decades of progress just to "respect" lesser cultures.

You prefer regressivism?

Also, what gives you the right to call a culture "lesser"? What makes your ideas about how you want your culture to be better than how other people in their culture what their culture to be.

We have no right to push our morals on people in sovereign nations. Believing in self-government doesn't make one a phony. It makes one consistent.

Well, here is the kicker. Progressives have no problem pushing their views on different cultures within a nation. They impose high taxes on cigarettes, ban trans fat, etc.

They also claim to be universalists who think all people are of equal moral worth. But, for some reason, they only think people within their nation deserve basic rights.

And, yes, I do think a culture that is richer, more develuped, more respective or womens' rights, and has freedom of speech is BETTER than one without those things.


The second group of phony progressives is anti capitalists (or socialists or statists). This group is just as bad. This group tends to have very innaccurate views of history. For instance, they will often say, falsely, that capitalism perpetuated or caused slavery when in fact capitalism came about after slavery and played a key role in the ending of slavery.

You're sh!tting me, right? Capitalism didn't come about after slavery in the US. Even if you believe that Capitalism began after Adam Smith's seminal work, Wealth of Nations, that book was published in 1776. Correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. "Accurate History", but slavery was alive and well at the birth of our nation, was it not?

That being said, Capitalism wasn't "invented" by Smith. It was DISCOVERED by him. He observed how the economy worked and he published his observations. Capitalism, as well as Socialism (because the same applies to Marx/Engels), have been in existence as long as societies have existed beyond the hunter/gatherer stage.

The rise of modern capitalism came well after the rise of slavery. When capitalism came, we still had slavery. It did not take long, after the rsie of capitalism, for slavery to dissapear in the developed world.

Why?

Capitalism fostered the development of manufacturing which reduced the need for slaves, among other things.


They ignore how capitalism and economic freedom tend to lead to things like freedom of speech and democratic systems of government. Not to mention the incredible progress in living standards brought about the capitalism.

Capitalism has it's pluses and minuses. I acknowledge the pluses. People like you don't acknowledge the minuses. Who is ignoring what, again?

Lol. You're trying to create a false equivalence with socialism and capitalism, where they both have pluses and minuses.

Sorry, buddy, capitalism is a whole lot better than socialism and works a lot better.

The minuses are there. But, capitalism is FAR better than any alternative.

(I know you didn't use the word socialism but I assume you support some sort of "social market" which is in between the two)


Free market capitalism is the most progressive economic system. Yet, supposed progressives constantly advocate shacking it with large welfare states, high amounts of regulations, and state ownership of some industries. It is amazing.

No it's not. Social Capitalism is.

Nope. Another stupid comment.

Your trying to play the false equivalence. Something like "socialism and capitalism both have flaws so we need social capitalism which is in the middle".

Sorry, evidence shows capitalism is much better than socialism. And, free market capitalism works much better and goes much faster than social capitalism.


I am a true progressive. I believe in western culture, with its progressive values, and free market capitalism, with its incredible ability to bring about progress.

And yet, with all these advantages, you don't know sh!t (see above).

Lol. The pot is calling the kettle black again. I actually have been right about everything I have said while everything you have said has been really, really stupid.


The people who claim to be progressives are really just statist multiculturalists... They are hypocrites who have hijacked the word progress.

As opposed to an idiot who doesn't know what it means?

Apparently, you don't know what it means.


To summarize, the truly progressive system is one of western values and free market capitalism and the truly regressive system is one of toleration of backwards cultures (multicultarism) and anti market economics.

Says you. Given how little you understand, even about the origins of your own political beliefs, I'm gonna choose to ignore your ideas and ridicule you until something intelligent emanates from your general direction. (I'm not holding my breath there...)

This is what happens when you have nothing intelligent to say. Actually, I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier, because you haven't anything intelligent to say in a while.


Ironic how the people who call themselves progressives are the least progressive of all.

Given that you just called yourself progressive, I guess we're in the Double Irony round now, huh?

I'll take F*cking Idiots on a Rant for $1200, Alex.

Yes, you are an idiot. You're lucky that others on this website give you attentin so you can argue your stupid ideas.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 2:37:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:37:27 PM, BigRat wrote:

You should really understand something before you pop off on it.

Malcolm, why do you bring your stupidity to my threads?

Because you can't refute any of it and watching you run in circles, chasing you tail trying amuses me.

You prefer regressivism?

Also, what gives you the right to call a culture "lesser"? What makes your ideas about how you want your culture to be better than how other people in their culture what their culture to be.

We have no right to push our morals on people in sovereign nations. Believing in self-government doesn't make one a phony. It makes one consistent.



Well, here is the kicker. Progressives have no problem pushing their views on different cultures within a nation. They impose high taxes on cigarettes, ban trans fat, etc.

Cigarettes cause health issues which burden society with the costs of care. To counteract these direct costs of smoking, taxes are levied. I smoke and I don't oppose this.

Smoking, additionally, is an activity which is common among cultures which have been introduced to tobacco, but nice, dipsh!t.

They also claim to be universalists who think all people are of equal moral worth. But, for some reason, they only think people within their nation deserve basic rights.

I don't believe any of that. I believe in SELF-DETERMINISM. Don't you?

And, yes, I do think a culture that is richer, more develuped, more respective or womens' rights, and has freedom of speech is BETTER than one without those things.

great. your opinion is meaningless.

The rise of modern capitalism came well after the rise of slavery. When capitalism came, we still had slavery. It did not take long, after the rsie of capitalism, for slavery to dissapear in the developed world.

Oh...modern Capitalism...why didn't you say so? As an Econ major, I never took modern Economics. When, exactly, did the modern era begin, and could you

Why?

Capitalism fostered the development of manufacturing which reduced the neehttp://www.debate.org... for slaves, among other things.

You are citing yourself to justify yourself? F*king retard.

Lol. You're trying to create a false equivalence with socialism and capitalism, where they both have pluses and minuses.

Sorry, buddy, capitalism is a whole lot better than socialism and works a lot better.

The minuses are there. But, capitalism is FAR better than any alternative.

All I said was that you fail to acknowledge the minuses. You have even dismissed them here as you mentioned they exist.

(I know you didn't use the word socialism but I assume you support some sort of "social market" which is in between the two)

I know you don't understand what I believe because yo lack the mental capacity to do so.

No it's not. Social Capitalism is.

Nope. Another stupid comment.

Your trying to play the false equivalence. Something like "socialism and capitalism both have flaws so we need social capitalism which is in the middle".

Sorry, evidence shows capitalism is much better than socialism. And, free market capitalism works much better and goes much faster than social capitalism.

What evidence? Prove it.

Lol. The pot is calling the kettle black again. I actually have been right about everything I have said while everything you have said has been really, really stupid.

Prove it, @sshole.


Apparently, you don't know what it means.

Did you just say, "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.

This is what happens when you have nothing intelligent to say. Actually, I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier, because you haven't anything intelligent to say in a while.

You can't refute anything I say with fact, and your insults are boring to boot.

Yes, you are an idiot. You

Wow, again with "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 4:11:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 2:37:59 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:37:27 PM, BigRat wrote:

You should really understand something before you pop off on it.

Malcolm, why do you bring your stupidity to my threads?

Because you can't refute any of it and watching you run in circles, chasing you tail trying amuses me.

Lol. I love it when somebody stupid, like you, thinks that they are making good points when they are really embarassing themselves with their stupidity (aagain, you).


You prefer regressivism?

Also, what gives you the right to call a culture "lesser"? What makes your ideas about how you want your culture to be better than how other people in their culture what their culture to be.

We have no right to push our morals on people in sovereign nations. Believing in self-government doesn't make one a phony. It makes one consistent.



Well, here is the kicker. Progressives have no problem pushing their views on different cultures within a nation. They impose high taxes on cigarettes, ban trans fat, etc.

Cigarettes cause health issues which burden society with the costs of care. To counteract these direct costs of smoking, taxes are levied. I smoke and I don't oppose this.

Smoking, additionally, is an activity which is common among cultures which have been introduced to tobacco, but nice, dipsh!t.

I also smoke. But, luckily, I have the financial means that allow the taxes to not really bother me.

Taxes on cigarettes are incredibly regressive. Lots of things are unhealthy. But, we choose to tax cigarettes because snotty progressives have contempt for the poor and the way they live, so they support regressive policies.


They also claim to be universalists who think all people are of equal moral worth. But, for some reason, they only think people within their nation deserve basic rights.

I don't believe any of that. I believe in SELF-DETERMINISM. Don't you?

No. I don't.

If someone tries to start a business but are held back by all kinds of taxes and regulations, it is not their fault.

So, no, I don't believe in self determination. Many conservatives don't.


And, yes, I do think a culture that is richer, more develuped, more respective or womens' rights, and has freedom of speech is BETTER than one without those things.

great. your opinion is meaningless.

Meaningless. Yes.

But at least my opinions are based on facts unlike yours.


The rise of modern capitalism came well after the rise of slavery. When capitalism came, we still had slavery. It did not take long, after the rsie of capitalism, for slavery to dissapear in the developed world.

Oh...modern Capitalism...why didn't you say so? As an Econ major, I never took modern Economics. When, exactly, did the modern era begin, and could you

We have a lot in common. I am also an econ major who smokes. And, it depends on who you ask. When I speak of the modern era, I am talking about sometime in the 1700s or early 1800s as a starting point.


Why?

Capitalism fostered the development of manufacturing which reduced the neehttp://www.debate.org... for slaves, among other things.

You are citing yourself to justify yourself? F*king retard.

I did not cite myself. I don't know what you are talking about.


Lol. You're trying to create a false equivalence with socialism and capitalism, where they both have pluses and minuses.

Sorry, buddy, capitalism is a whole lot better than socialism and works a lot better.

The minuses are there. But, capitalism is FAR better than any alternative.

All I said was that you fail to acknowledge the minuses. You have even dismissed them here as you mentioned they exist.

They exist. But, they are minimal compared to other systems.


(I know you didn't use the word socialism but I assume you support some sort of "social market" which is in between the two)

I know you don't understand what I believe because yo lack the mental capacity to do so.

Lol. The pot is calling the kettle black. I hate using that again. But, you do it a lot.

You are quite dumb yourself and you call others, who know a lot more than you, dumb.


No it's not. Social Capitalism is.

Nope. Another stupid comment.

Your trying to play the false equivalence. Something like "socialism and capitalism both have flaws so we need social capitalism which is in the middle".

Sorry, evidence shows capitalism is much better than socialism. And, free market capitalism works much better and goes much faster than social capitalism.

What evidence? Prove it.

Lol. Have you studied the 20th century?


Lol. The pot is calling the kettle black again. I actually have been right about everything I have said while everything you have said has been really, really stupid.

Prove it, @sshole.

I have been.



Apparently, you don't know what it means.

Did you just say, "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.

That's what you have been doing.


This is what happens when you have nothing intelligent to say. Actually, I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier, because you haven't anything intelligent to say in a while.

You can't refute anything I say with fact, and your insults are boring to boot.

Yes, you are an idiot. You

Wow, again with "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.

You have been doing that exact thing this entire time. And, any intelligent person would know how wrong you are.

Your views are incredibly stupid as are your defenses of them.

I base my views on reality.

Reality has a conservative/libertarian bias.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 4:49:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 4:11:19 PM, BigRat wrote:

Lol. I love it when somebody stupid, like you, thinks that they are making good points when they are really embarassing themselves with their stupidity (aagain, you).

Oh, so once again, you got nothing. From the continuation, the score is:

Me - 4
You - 0

I also smoke. But, luckily, I have the financial means that allow the taxes to not really bother me.

Taxes on cigarettes are incredibly regressive. Lots of things are unhealthy. But, we choose to tax cigarettes because snotty progressives have contempt for the poor and the way they live, so they support regressive policies.

So, nothing, once again, to support your malformed position.

Me - 5

You - 0

No. I don't.

If someone tries to start a business but are held back by all kinds of taxes and regulations, it is not their fault.

So, no, I don't believe in self determination. Many conservatives don't.

Doesn't know what self-determination is.

Me - 6

You - 0

Meaningless. Yes.

But at least my opinions are based on facts unlike yours.

Has presented none of these "facts".

Me - 7

You - 0

We have a lot in common. I am also an econ major who smokes. And, it depends on who you ask. When I speak of the modern era, I am talking about sometime in the 1700s or early 1800s as a starting point.

SO, BEFORE THE END OF SLAVERY???

Me - 8

You - 0

I did not cite myself. I don't know what you are talking about.

Now, confusion.

Me - 9

You - 0

They exist. But, they are minimal compared to other systems.

More unfounded statements.

Me - 10

Lol. The pot is calling the kettle black. I hate using that again. But, you do it a lot.

You are quite dumb yourself and you call others, who know a lot more than you, dumb.

Unfounded Ad Hominem

Me - 11

You - 0

Lol. Have you studied the 20th century?

No evidence

Me - 12

You - 0

I have been.

With what?

Me - 13

You - 0

Did you just say, "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.


That's what you have been doing.

You just did it again.

Me - 14

You - 0

Wow, again with "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.



You have been doing that exact thing this entire time. And, any intelligent person would know how wrong you are.

Your views are incredibly stupid as are your defenses of them.

I base my views on reality.

Reality has a conservative/libertarian bias.

And, again he refutes with playground logic.

Final tally

Me - 15

You - 0


No wonder you won't debate me. I wouldn't want to get my @ss kicked like this in a debate either.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 5:12:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 4:49:15 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:11:19 PM, BigRat wrote:


Lol. I love it when somebody stupid, like you, thinks that they are making good points when they are really embarassing themselves with their stupidity (aagain, you).

Oh, so once again, you got nothing. From the continuation, the score is:

Me - 4
You - 0

I also smoke. But, luckily, I have the financial means that allow the taxes to not really bother me.

Taxes on cigarettes are incredibly regressive. Lots of things are unhealthy. But, we choose to tax cigarettes because snotty progressives have contempt for the poor and the way they live, so they support regressive policies.

So, nothing, once again, to support your malformed position.

Me - 5

You - 0

No. I don't.

If someone tries to start a business but are held back by all kinds of taxes and regulations, it is not their fault.

So, no, I don't believe in self determination. Many conservatives don't.

Doesn't know what self-determination is.

Me - 6

You - 0

Meaningless. Yes.

But at least my opinions are based on facts unlike yours.

Has presented none of these "facts".

Me - 7

You - 0

We have a lot in common. I am also an econ major who smokes. And, it depends on who you ask. When I speak of the modern era, I am talking about sometime in the 1700s or early 1800s as a starting point.

SO, BEFORE THE END OF SLAVERY???

Me - 8

You - 0

I did not cite myself. I don't know what you are talking about.

Now, confusion.

Me - 9

You - 0

They exist. But, they are minimal compared to other systems.

More unfounded statements.

Me - 10

Lol. The pot is calling the kettle black. I hate using that again. But, you do it a lot.

You are quite dumb yourself and you call others, who know a lot more than you, dumb.

Unfounded Ad Hominem

Me - 11

You - 0

Lol. Have you studied the 20th century?

No evidence

Me - 12

You - 0

I have been.

With what?

Me - 13

You - 0

Did you just say, "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.


That's what you have been doing.

You just did it again.

Me - 14

You - 0

Wow, again with "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.



You have been doing that exact thing this entire time. And, any intelligent person would know how wrong you are.

Your views are incredibly stupid as are your defenses of them.

I base my views on reality.

Reality has a conservative/libertarian bias.

And, again he refutes with playground logic.

Final tally

Me - 15

You - 0


No wonder you won't debate me. I wouldn't want to get my @ss kicked like this in a debate either.

Malcolm, as I said elsewhere, I'm gonna stop embarassing you. You have been embarassing yourself for a while. For your sake, I hope you stop.

Outside of your bubble, you kno very little. And, you can make up some phony score, but that doesn't change that.

Anyways, I'm not gonna respond to you anymore because it would waste my time to justify the flat out wrong and stupid things you are saying with a response.

Plus, I really shouldn't be embarassing you like this.

I'm gonna reserve my responses for more intelligent people who actually know what they are talking about. I'm sure you'll just respond to this with more insults, which just shows how pathetic you are.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 5:25:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 5:12:04 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:49:15 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:11:19 PM, BigRat wrote:


Lol. I love it when somebody stupid, like you, thinks that they are making good points when they are really embarassing themselves with their stupidity (aagain, you).

Oh, so once again, you got nothing. From the continuation, the score is:

Me - 4
You - 0

I also smoke. But, luckily, I have the financial means that allow the taxes to not really bother me.

Taxes on cigarettes are incredibly regressive. Lots of things are unhealthy. But, we choose to tax cigarettes because snotty progressives have contempt for the poor and the way they live, so they support regressive policies.

So, nothing, once again, to support your malformed position.

Me - 5

You - 0

No. I don't.

If someone tries to start a business but are held back by all kinds of taxes and regulations, it is not their fault.

So, no, I don't believe in self determination. Many conservatives don't.

Doesn't know what self-determination is.

Me - 6

You - 0

Meaningless. Yes.

But at least my opinions are based on facts unlike yours.

Has presented none of these "facts".

Me - 7

You - 0

We have a lot in common. I am also an econ major who smokes. And, it depends on who you ask. When I speak of the modern era, I am talking about sometime in the 1700s or early 1800s as a starting point.

SO, BEFORE THE END OF SLAVERY???

Me - 8

You - 0

I did not cite myself. I don't know what you are talking about.

Now, confusion.

Me - 9

You - 0

They exist. But, they are minimal compared to other systems.

More unfounded statements.

Me - 10

Lol. The pot is calling the kettle black. I hate using that again. But, you do it a lot.

You are quite dumb yourself and you call others, who know a lot more than you, dumb.

Unfounded Ad Hominem

Me - 11

You - 0

Lol. Have you studied the 20th century?

No evidence

Me - 12

You - 0

I have been.

With what?

Me - 13

You - 0

Did you just say, "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.


That's what you have been doing.

You just did it again.

Me - 14

You - 0

Wow, again with "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.



You have been doing that exact thing this entire time. And, any intelligent person would know how wrong you are.

Your views are incredibly stupid as are your defenses of them.

I base my views on reality.

Reality has a conservative/libertarian bias.

And, again he refutes with playground logic.

Final tally

Me - 15

You - 0


No wonder you won't debate me. I wouldn't want to get my @ss kicked like this in a debate either.


Malcolm, as I said elsewhere, I'm gonna stop embarassing you. You have been embarassing yourself for a while. For your sake, I hope you stop.

Outside of your bubble, you kno very little. And, you can make up some phony score, but that doesn't change that.

Anyways, I'm not gonna respond to you anymore because it would waste my time to justify the flat out wrong and stupid things you are saying with a response.

Plus, I really shouldn't be embarassing you like this.

I'm gonna reserve my responses for more intelligent people who actually know what they are talking about. I'm sure you'll just respond to this with more insults, which just shows how pathetic you are.

Still can't back up a single thing he says with fact.

Me - 29

you - 0
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 5:35:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 5:25:43 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 5:12:04 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:49:15 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:11:19 PM, BigRat wrote:


Lol. I love it when somebody stupid, like you, thinks that they are making good points when they are really embarassing themselves with their stupidity (aagain, you).

Oh, so once again, you got nothing. From the continuation, the score is:

Me - 4
You - 0

I also smoke. But, luckily, I have the financial means that allow the taxes to not really bother me.

Taxes on cigarettes are incredibly regressive. Lots of things are unhealthy. But, we choose to tax cigarettes because snotty progressives have contempt for the poor and the way they live, so they support regressive policies.

So, nothing, once again, to support your malformed position.

Me - 5

You - 0

No. I don't.

If someone tries to start a business but are held back by all kinds of taxes and regulations, it is not their fault.

So, no, I don't believe in self determination. Many conservatives don't.

Doesn't know what self-determination is.

Me - 6

You - 0

Meaningless. Yes.

But at least my opinions are based on facts unlike yours.

Has presented none of these "facts".

Me - 7

You - 0

We have a lot in common. I am also an econ major who smokes. And, it depends on who you ask. When I speak of the modern era, I am talking about sometime in the 1700s or early 1800s as a starting point.

SO, BEFORE THE END OF SLAVERY???

Me - 8

You - 0

I did not cite myself. I don't know what you are talking about.

Now, confusion.

Me - 9

You - 0

They exist. But, they are minimal compared to other systems.

More unfounded statements.

Me - 10

Lol. The pot is calling the kettle black. I hate using that again. But, you do it a lot.

You are quite dumb yourself and you call others, who know a lot more than you, dumb.

Unfounded Ad Hominem

Me - 11

You - 0

Lol. Have you studied the 20th century?

No evidence

Me - 12

You - 0

I have been.

With what?

Me - 13

You - 0

Did you just say, "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.


That's what you have been doing.

You just did it again.

Me - 14

You - 0

Wow, again with "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.



You have been doing that exact thing this entire time. And, any intelligent person would know how wrong you are.

Your views are incredibly stupid as are your defenses of them.

I base my views on reality.

Reality has a conservative/libertarian bias.

And, again he refutes with playground logic.

Final tally

Me - 15

You - 0


No wonder you won't debate me. I wouldn't want to get my @ss kicked like this in a debate either.


Malcolm, as I said elsewhere, I'm gonna stop embarassing you. You have been embarassing yourself for a while. For your sake, I hope you stop.

Outside of your bubble, you kno very little. And, you can make up some phony score, but that doesn't change that.

Anyways, I'm not gonna respond to you anymore because it would waste my time to justify the flat out wrong and stupid things you are saying with a response.

Plus, I really shouldn't be embarassing you like this.

I'm gonna reserve my responses for more intelligent people who actually know what they are talking about. I'm sure you'll just respond to this with more insults, which just shows how pathetic you are.

Still can't back up a single thing he says with fact.

Me - 29

you - 0


This response (a phony score to a non existant contest you made up) says a lot about you.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 6:10:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 9:05:13 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/5/2013 8:39:42 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/5/2013 8:20:35 PM, BigRat wrote:

And, ad hominem is only a fallacy if I say that characteristics of the person making a certain argument disqualify their argument. If I simply attack the characteristics of a certain group, that is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is attacking a group. But, attacking a group in and of itself is not a fallacy.

This is true.

If I try and disqualify an argument based on the person's characteristics themselves, it would be ad hominem. For example, if I try to discredit an argument because the dude is wearing a purple tie or has an annoying voice, that is ad hominem.

However, for most progressives, they think their policies would help society as a whole. While I almost fully disagree (unemployment insurance, the civil rights act are both good policies), I try and respect their views, which you have been doing.

Free markets rise the standards of living in a society. People act in their self interest and unduly benefit others.

The car manufacturer must have an efficient production process so that prices remain low and overall profits are higher. Innovation is incentivized naturally. The best car producer wins.

By investing in capital goods and the process of manufacturing, productivity skyrockets over time. Wages correlate with this through the competition for labor. So, take home pay goes up.

Redistribution distorts the incentives to work hard, earn an honest living, and to become self reliant. It is tragic, and everyone deserves better. The poor should live in a nation that promotes prosperity through policies like tax relief which strongly facilitates job creation, innovation, and broad economic growth.
--------------------

Libertarians are *usually* better with economics, but liberals are better when it comes to compassion. Libertarians need to catch up, as a vision of laissez faire economics and social freedom strengthen the ladder of upward mobility and opportunity from which humanity can prosper and thrive.


I agree (although unemployment insurance should be reformed to reduce perverse incentives for work).

Adjust benefits to somewhat similar to their recent wages. This is what Canada does and it has been successful, and reduces poor incentives.

Libertarians don't always get the whole compassion thing. They focus on getting the facts right and on showing their ideas are superior in empirical and logical ways (which I am glad of).

Yes.

However, liberals often use compassion which appeals to people more than facts and figures. Libertarians try to appeal to the head while liberals appeal to the heart. The head makes for better policy but the heart makes for better politics.

Yes!

Libertarians need to learn how to appeal to compassion.

I fully agree. I try to do that, I don't know how effective my forum post was. I have actually never heard a compassionate libertarian argument. Let me repeat that, I have never seen a real compassionate, to the heart libertarian argument. I thought my argument was persuasive, but that is only from my perspective.

Rather than using the "gun in the room approach", we need to demonstrate the benefits of our philosophy.

Which I will do in a future debate.

Most of the libertarians who get this are themselves former liberals.

I never knew this before.

I am a former liberal and you seem like one too. Am I right?

You are correct, I am a former liberal. How did you guess that though?

I called myself a progressive though, as I was scared of the label "liberal".
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 6:31:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 6:10:44 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/5/2013 9:05:13 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/5/2013 8:39:42 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/5/2013 8:20:35 PM, BigRat wrote:

And, ad hominem is only a fallacy if I say that characteristics of the person making a certain argument disqualify their argument. If I simply attack the characteristics of a certain group, that is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is attacking a group. But, attacking a group in and of itself is not a fallacy.

This is true.

If I try and disqualify an argument based on the person's characteristics themselves, it would be ad hominem. For example, if I try to discredit an argument because the dude is wearing a purple tie or has an annoying voice, that is ad hominem.

However, for most progressives, they think their policies would help society as a whole. While I almost fully disagree (unemployment insurance, the civil rights act are both good policies), I try and respect their views, which you have been doing.

Free markets rise the standards of living in a society. People act in their self interest and unduly benefit others.

The car manufacturer must have an efficient production process so that prices remain low and overall profits are higher. Innovation is incentivized naturally. The best car producer wins.

By investing in capital goods and the process of manufacturing, productivity skyrockets over time. Wages correlate with this through the competition for labor. So, take home pay goes up.

Redistribution distorts the incentives to work hard, earn an honest living, and to become self reliant. It is tragic, and everyone deserves better. The poor should live in a nation that promotes prosperity through policies like tax relief which strongly facilitates job creation, innovation, and broad economic growth.
--------------------

Libertarians are *usually* better with economics, but liberals are better when it comes to compassion. Libertarians need to catch up, as a vision of laissez faire economics and social freedom strengthen the ladder of upward mobility and opportunity from which humanity can prosper and thrive.


I agree (although unemployment insurance should be reformed to reduce perverse incentives for work).

Adjust benefits to somewhat similar to their recent wages. This is what Canada does and it has been successful, and reduces poor incentives.

I didn't know that. That sounds like a superior way of doing it.


Libertarians don't always get the whole compassion thing. They focus on getting the facts right and on showing their ideas are superior in empirical and logical ways (which I am glad of).

Yes.

However, liberals often use compassion which appeals to people more than facts and figures. Libertarians try to appeal to the head while liberals appeal to the heart. The head makes for better policy but the heart makes for better politics.

Yes!

Libertarians need to learn how to appeal to compassion.

I fully agree. I try to do that, I don't know how effective my forum post was. I have actually never heard a compassionate libertarian argument. Let me repeat that, I have never seen a real compassionate, to the heart libertarian argument. I thought my argument was persuasive, but that is only from my perspective.

Rather than using the "gun in the room approach", we need to demonstrate the benefits of our philosophy.

Which I will do in a future debate.

Most of the libertarians who get this are themselves former liberals.

I never knew this before.

I am a former liberal and you seem like one too. Am I right?

You are correct, I am a former liberal. How did you guess that though?

I called myself a progressive though, as I was scared of the label "liberal".

People that I know that have always been libertarian or conservative tend not to understand the need to appeal to compassion. They are smart people, but they don't understand the appeal of liberalism (or progressivism).

People like me and you, who were once liberals or progressives, can see the logical and empirical problems with these philosophies but also see why they have so much popular support.

The reason I guessed you were a former liberal (which I am glad I was right about, haha) was that you seemed to understand the reason why liberalism is empirically and logically wrong but also why liberalism has more popular support than libertarianism.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 7:29:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 6:31:22 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 6:10:44 PM, Contra wrote:

I am a former liberal and you seem like one too. Am I right?

You are correct, I am a former liberal. How did you guess that though?

I called myself a progressive though, as I was scared of the label "liberal".


People that I know that have always been libertarian or conservative tend not to understand the need to appeal to compassion. They are smart people, but they don't understand the appeal of liberalism (or progressivism).

People like me and you, who were once liberals or progressives, can see the logical and empirical problems with these philosophies but also see why they have so much popular support.

The reason I guessed you were a former liberal (which I am glad I was right about, haha) was that you seemed to understand the reason why liberalism is empirically and logically wrong but also why liberalism has more popular support than libertarianism.

Thank you.

Yes, for example single payer health care. Who would be opposed to universal, comprehensive, and more affordable health care? You must hate the poor!!!

The logical counter-argument is simple: when the state delivers the service, there is no profit motive, rationing through waiting lines, no competition. As a result, medical innovation disappears, literally. The quality of care goes down, as there is no incentive.

^ But who is swayed. The person may say, "well yeah but I still think people should have access to health care." The key is to reframe the debate. Argue for, not against. Don't argue against tax hikes, argue for tax relief.

We need a free market in health care. The incentives that are built in the system, with the profit motive and competition, would ensure an excellent health care system. A network that delivers state of the art health care, at affordable prices. This would come with greater middle class security, and allow wages to go up. Greater American competitiveness.

^ Now, people have an altered way of thinking. They associate free enterprise with better standards of living. Which is key.

The way free markets organize the incentives of self interest to benefit others are the reason why free, voluntary exchanges succeed.

----------------------------

I hate the arguments like "you hate the poor", or "you support the policies which would destroy the middle class". I absolutely hate these arguments and they are surely false.

I'm glad that someone else though understands the same dilemma as I do. Did you think my arguments above were okay, and where would you recommend improvements?

So yes, reframe the debate. Don't argue against "saving entitlements" or "making the wealthy pay their fair share". Attractive frames and words will succeed. Instead argue for "greater retirement security with personal retirement accounts", and "stronger job creation with a more prosperous economy."

I got some of these ideas from liberal writers actually.

And the best thing about reframing is that the correct arguments sound good.

I just wish I could find others who were as interested in government, economic policy, and political debate as I am. Who the hell is interested in budgets and tax revenues in my school besides myself? Agh! Student gov't outside of school isn't long enough.

So most of my offline conversations are about other things.
-----------

So what I said summarizes my opinion of what libertarians/ conservatives need to do. You probably knew all of this already, but it summarizes what I know and recommend.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 8:01:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 7:29:39 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2013 6:31:22 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 6:10:44 PM, Contra wrote:

I am a former liberal and you seem like one too. Am I right?

You are correct, I am a former liberal. How did you guess that though?

I called myself a progressive though, as I was scared of the label "liberal".


People that I know that have always been libertarian or conservative tend not to understand the need to appeal to compassion. They are smart people, but they don't understand the appeal of liberalism (or progressivism).

People like me and you, who were once liberals or progressives, can see the logical and empirical problems with these philosophies but also see why they have so much popular support.

The reason I guessed you were a former liberal (which I am glad I was right about, haha) was that you seemed to understand the reason why liberalism is empirically and logically wrong but also why liberalism has more popular support than libertarianism.

Thank you.

Yes, for example single payer health care. Who would be opposed to universal, comprehensive, and more affordable health care? You must hate the poor!!!

The logical counter-argument is simple: when the state delivers the service, there is no profit motive, rationing through waiting lines, no competition. As a result, medical innovation disappears, literally. The quality of care goes down, as there is no incentive.

^ But who is swayed. The person may say, "well yeah but I still think people should have access to health care." The key is to reframe the debate. Argue for, not against. Don't argue against tax hikes, argue for tax relief.

We need a free market in health care. The incentives that are built in the system, with the profit motive and competition, would ensure an excellent health care system. A network that delivers state of the art health care, at affordable prices. This would come with greater middle class security, and allow wages to go up. Greater American competitiveness.

^ Now, people have an altered way of thinking. They associate free enterprise with better standards of living. Which is key.

The way free markets organize the incentives of self interest to benefit others are the reason why free, voluntary exchanges succeed.

----------------------------

I hate the arguments like "you hate the poor", or "you support the policies which would destroy the middle class". I absolutely hate these arguments and they are surely false.

I'm glad that someone else though understands the same dilemma as I do. Did you think my arguments above were okay, and where would you recommend improvements?

So yes, reframe the debate. Don't argue against "saving entitlements" or "making the wealthy pay their fair share". Attractive frames and words will succeed. Instead argue for "greater retirement security with personal retirement accounts", and "stronger job creation with a more prosperous economy."

I got some of these ideas from liberal writers actually.

And the best thing about reframing is that the correct arguments sound good.

I just wish I could find others who were as interested in government, economic policy, and political debate as I am. Who the hell is interested in budgets and tax revenues in my school besides myself? Agh! Student gov't outside of school isn't long enough.

So most of my offline conversations are about other things.
-----------

So what I said summarizes my opinion of what libertarians/ conservatives need to do. You probably knew all of this already, but it summarizes what I know and recommend.

Your arguments did a really good job. Your absolutely right that with regards to health care, for example, we need to be making the case that more a free market in health care would lead to higher quality health care for middle income families. The economics are somewhat complex (not that complex if you have an economics degree or spend a lot of time on it but complex if you are an average voter). So, we need to find ways to frame the debate as consumer driven health care vs State dominated health care instead of Universal, free Health care vs non Universal, non Free health care.

Another mistake libertarians and conservatives often make is arguing on moral grounds. For instance, they will argue that really high taxes on the rich is immoral. I actually agree with this, but it is unpersuasive to most voters.

Instead, we need to point out how high taxes on the rich reduces innovation and burdens job creation, as you said.

Libertarians need to realize that a big part of their problem is that they are bad at framing debates. They get the product right but the advertising is awful, haha.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 8:34:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 5:35:23 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 5:25:43 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 5:12:04 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:49:15 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:11:19 PM, BigRat wrote:


Lol. I love it when somebody stupid, like you, thinks that they are making good points when they are really embarassing themselves with their stupidity (aagain, you).

Oh, so once again, you got nothing. From the continuation, the score is:

Me - 4
You - 0

I also smoke. But, luckily, I have the financial means that allow the taxes to not really bother me.

Taxes on cigarettes are incredibly regressive. Lots of things are unhealthy. But, we choose to tax cigarettes because snotty progressives have contempt for the poor and the way they live, so they support regressive policies.

So, nothing, once again, to support your malformed position.

Me - 5

You - 0

No. I don't.

If someone tries to start a business but are held back by all kinds of taxes and regulations, it is not their fault.

So, no, I don't believe in self determination. Many conservatives don't.

Doesn't know what self-determination is.

Me - 6

You - 0

Meaningless. Yes.

But at least my opinions are based on facts unlike yours.

Has presented none of these "facts".

Me - 7

You - 0

We have a lot in common. I am also an econ major who smokes. And, it depends on who you ask. When I speak of the modern era, I am talking about sometime in the 1700s or early 1800s as a starting point.

SO, BEFORE THE END OF SLAVERY???

Me - 8

You - 0

I did not cite myself. I don't know what you are talking about.

Now, confusion.

Me - 9

You - 0

They exist. But, they are minimal compared to other systems.

More unfounded statements.

Me - 10

Lol. The pot is calling the kettle black. I hate using that again. But, you do it a lot.

You are quite dumb yourself and you call others, who know a lot more than you, dumb.

Unfounded Ad Hominem

Me - 11

You - 0

Lol. Have you studied the 20th century?

No evidence

Me - 12

You - 0

I have been.

With what?

Me - 13

You - 0

Did you just say, "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.


That's what you have been doing.

You just did it again.

Me - 14

You - 0

Wow, again with "nuh-uh, I'm rubber and you're glue"? F*cking retard.



You have been doing that exact thing this entire time. And, any intelligent person would know how wrong you are.

Your views are incredibly stupid as are your defenses of them.

I base my views on reality.

Reality has a conservative/libertarian bias.

And, again he refutes with playground logic.

Final tally

Me - 15

You - 0


No wonder you won't debate me. I wouldn't want to get my @ss kicked like this in a debate either.


Malcolm, as I said elsewhere, I'm gonna stop embarassing you. You have been embarassing yourself for a while. For your sake, I hope you stop.

Outside of your bubble, you kno very little. And, you can make up some phony score, but that doesn't change that.

Anyways, I'm not gonna respond to you anymore because it would waste my time to justify the flat out wrong and stupid things you are saying with a response.

Plus, I really shouldn't be embarassing you like this.

I'm gonna reserve my responses for more intelligent people who actually know what they are talking about. I'm sure you'll just respond to this with more insults, which just shows how pathetic you are.

Still can't back up a single thing he says with fact.

Me - 29

you - 0


This response (a phony score to a non existant contest you made up) says a lot about you.

You - Anyways, I'm not gonna respond to you anymore because it would waste my time to justify the flat out wrong and stupid things you are saying with a response.

Me - continuing to rack up the points.

Me - 49

You - 0
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...