Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Liberalism=You Must Play Russian Roulette

Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

Liberals have two main premises to their arguments: one, just because something will possibly go wrong doesn't mean it will necessarily go wrong; and two, you need evidence in order to prove that something will go wrong such that you don't have to participate in it.

By that logic, you should be forced to play Russian Roulette, potentially until you're dead.

Why?

In the game of Russian Roulette, every chamber isn't loaded with a bullet. Therefore, just because you might get shot doesn't mean you will get shot. Furthermore, you can't prove a shooting until a shooting happens, so until you get shot after experience, you have no evidence of shooting.

As an added bonus, liberals advocate social safety nets in case of things going wrong, so basically, they say that if you get shot, it's OK because the social safety net will be there to catch you...

...so if you enjoy assuming the risk of getting shot, actually getting shot, and going to a hospital after the fact to make things all better, be a liberal.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:29:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

Liberals have two main premises to their arguments: one, just because something will possibly go wrong doesn't mean it will necessarily go wrong; and two, you need evidence in order to prove that something will go wrong such that you don't have to participate in it.

By that logic, you should be forced to play Russian Roulette, potentially until you're dead.

Why?

In the game of Russian Roulette, every chamber isn't loaded with a bullet. Therefore, just because you might get shot doesn't mean you will get shot. Furthermore, you can't prove a shooting until a shooting happens, so until you get shot after experience, you have no evidence of shooting.

As an added bonus, liberals advocate social safety nets in case of things going wrong, so basically, they say that if you get shot, it's OK because the social safety net will be there to catch you...

...so if you enjoy assuming the risk of getting shot, actually getting shot, and going to a hospital after the fact to make things all better, be a liberal.

What kind of mental acrobatics are you performing here? Your analogy is flawed. It seems like you're implying that a social safety net causes you to get shot, when it doesn't. With a social safety net, you're acknowledging that something bad might happen, and that you want to be prepared in case it does so you don't bleed to death. In what world would that NOT make sense?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:07:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

I don't believe you.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:33:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:07:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

I don't believe you.

They were probably the type of liberals Fox News uses for sampling.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:14:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know about you, but I don't exactly take into consideration the costs of going to the hospital while playing Russian Roullette.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:14:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know about you, but I don't exactly take into consideration the costs of going to the hospital while playing Russian Roullette.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:19:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

My, this argument must be fantastic!

Liberals have two main premises to their arguments: one, just because something will possibly go wrong doesn't mean it will necessarily go wrong; and two, you need evidence in order to prove that something will go wrong such that you don't have to participate in it.

What.

No, the premise to the argument is that maybe you should give a sh!t about other people.

By that logic, you should be forced to play Russian Roulette, potentially until you're dead.

What.

Why?

My question exactly.

In the game of Russian Roulette, every chamber isn't loaded with a bullet. Therefore, just because you might get shot doesn't mean you will get shot. Furthermore, you can't prove a shooting until a shooting happens, so until you get shot after experience, you have no evidence of shooting.

*beats head against tree* There is still a 1 in x chance of getting shot.

As an added bonus, liberals advocate social safety nets in case of things going wrong, so basically, they say that if you get shot, it's OK because the social safety net will be there to catch you...

Um, no. It's 'It's better to have a social safety net and be shot than be shot and not have a social safety net'. Ideally there would be no getting shot.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 12:04:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:04:57 AM, Daktoria wrote:
Where were social safety nets at the beginning of what I said? Do you understand the meaning of the word, "bonus"?

I apologize for refuting the only part of your argument that had a low enough concentration of logical fallacies to be interpreted as a semi-coherent logical set of points and a conclusion. Better?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 12:38:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 11:19:38 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

My, this argument must be fantastic!

Liberals have two main premises to their arguments: one, just because something will possibly go wrong doesn't mean it will necessarily go wrong; and two, you need evidence in order to prove that something will go wrong such that you don't have to participate in it.

What.

No, the premise to the argument is that maybe you should give a sh!t about other people.

By that logic, you should be forced to play Russian Roulette, potentially until you're dead.

What.

Why?

My question exactly.

In the game of Russian Roulette, every chamber isn't loaded with a bullet. Therefore, just because you might get shot doesn't mean you will get shot. Furthermore, you can't prove a shooting until a shooting happens, so until you get shot after experience, you have no evidence of shooting.

*beats head against tree* There is still a 1 in x chance of getting shot.

As an added bonus, liberals advocate social safety nets in case of things going wrong, so basically, they say that if you get shot, it's OK because the social safety net will be there to catch you...

Um, no. It's 'It's better to have a social safety net and be shot than be shot and not have a social safety net'. Ideally there would be no getting shot.

If liberals cared about other people, then they wouldn't expect people to conform to authority by mandating people participate in social programs. Instead, they would let people judge for themselves how to live their lives.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 2:52:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 12:38:07 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:19:38 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

My, this argument must be fantastic!

Liberals have two main premises to their arguments: one, just because something will possibly go wrong doesn't mean it will necessarily go wrong; and two, you need evidence in order to prove that something will go wrong such that you don't have to participate in it.

What.

No, the premise to the argument is that maybe you should give a sh!t about other people.

By that logic, you should be forced to play Russian Roulette, potentially until you're dead.

What.

Why?

My question exactly.

In the game of Russian Roulette, every chamber isn't loaded with a bullet. Therefore, just because you might get shot doesn't mean you will get shot. Furthermore, you can't prove a shooting until a shooting happens, so until you get shot after experience, you have no evidence of shooting.

*beats head against tree* There is still a 1 in x chance of getting shot.

As an added bonus, liberals advocate social safety nets in case of things going wrong, so basically, they say that if you get shot, it's OK because the social safety net will be there to catch you...

Um, no. It's 'It's better to have a social safety net and be shot than be shot and not have a social safety net'. Ideally there would be no getting shot.

If liberals cared about other people, then they wouldn't expect people to conform to authority by mandating people participate in social programs. Instead, they would let people judge for themselves how to live their lives.

So we should judge for ourselves whether or not we get shot and bleed to death?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:02:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 2:52:12 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/9/2013 12:38:07 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:19:38 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

My, this argument must be fantastic!

Liberals have two main premises to their arguments: one, just because something will possibly go wrong doesn't mean it will necessarily go wrong; and two, you need evidence in order to prove that something will go wrong such that you don't have to participate in it.

What.

No, the premise to the argument is that maybe you should give a sh!t about other people.

By that logic, you should be forced to play Russian Roulette, potentially until you're dead.

What.

Why?

My question exactly.

In the game of Russian Roulette, every chamber isn't loaded with a bullet. Therefore, just because you might get shot doesn't mean you will get shot. Furthermore, you can't prove a shooting until a shooting happens, so until you get shot after experience, you have no evidence of shooting.

*beats head against tree* There is still a 1 in x chance of getting shot.

As an added bonus, liberals advocate social safety nets in case of things going wrong, so basically, they say that if you get shot, it's OK because the social safety net will be there to catch you...

Um, no. It's 'It's better to have a social safety net and be shot than be shot and not have a social safety net'. Ideally there would be no getting shot.

If liberals cared about other people, then they wouldn't expect people to conform to authority by mandating people participate in social programs. Instead, they would let people judge for themselves how to live their lives.

So we should judge for ourselves whether or not we get shot and bleed to death?

We should judge for ourselves what risks we're willing to take with our lives.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:11:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 12:38:07 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:19:38 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

My, this argument must be fantastic!

Liberals have two main premises to their arguments: one, just because something will possibly go wrong doesn't mean it will necessarily go wrong; and two, you need evidence in order to prove that something will go wrong such that you don't have to participate in it.

What.

No, the premise to the argument is that maybe you should give a sh!t about other people.

By that logic, you should be forced to play Russian Roulette, potentially until you're dead.

What.

Why?

My question exactly.

In the game of Russian Roulette, every chamber isn't loaded with a bullet. Therefore, just because you might get shot doesn't mean you will get shot. Furthermore, you can't prove a shooting until a shooting happens, so until you get shot after experience, you have no evidence of shooting.

*beats head against tree* There is still a 1 in x chance of getting shot.

As an added bonus, liberals advocate social safety nets in case of things going wrong, so basically, they say that if you get shot, it's OK because the social safety net will be there to catch you...

Um, no. It's 'It's better to have a social safety net and be shot than be shot and not have a social safety net'. Ideally there would be no getting shot.

If liberals cared about other people, then they wouldn't expect people to conform to authority by mandating people participate in social programs. Instead, they would let people judge for themselves how to live their lives.

Not necessarily. Humans do stupid things sometimes, and many would argue that we have a duty to keep them from hurting themselves too badly.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 7:52:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 4:11:14 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/9/2013 12:38:07 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:19:38 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

My, this argument must be fantastic!

Liberals have two main premises to their arguments: one, just because something will possibly go wrong doesn't mean it will necessarily go wrong; and two, you need evidence in order to prove that something will go wrong such that you don't have to participate in it.

What.

No, the premise to the argument is that maybe you should give a sh!t about other people.

By that logic, you should be forced to play Russian Roulette, potentially until you're dead.

What.

Why?

My question exactly.

In the game of Russian Roulette, every chamber isn't loaded with a bullet. Therefore, just because you might get shot doesn't mean you will get shot. Furthermore, you can't prove a shooting until a shooting happens, so until you get shot after experience, you have no evidence of shooting.

*beats head against tree* There is still a 1 in x chance of getting shot.

As an added bonus, liberals advocate social safety nets in case of things going wrong, so basically, they say that if you get shot, it's OK because the social safety net will be there to catch you...

Um, no. It's 'It's better to have a social safety net and be shot than be shot and not have a social safety net'. Ideally there would be no getting shot.

If liberals cared about other people, then they wouldn't expect people to conform to authority by mandating people participate in social programs. Instead, they would let people judge for themselves how to live their lives.

Not necessarily. Humans do stupid things sometimes, and many would argue that we have a duty to keep them from hurting themselves too badly.

Just because it's possible that people argue that doesn't mean that's necessarily valid. You're making an appeal to popularity.

Likewise, what's stupid to someone isn't automatically stupid to everyone, and the definition of "too badly" is subjective.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 11:18:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 7:52:05 AM, Daktoria wrote:
At 4/9/2013 4:11:14 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/9/2013 12:38:07 PM, Daktoria wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:19:38 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/9/2013 7:06:49 AM, Daktoria wrote:
I tried using this explanation with a few liberals yesterday, and it actually persuaded them to stop being liberal, so I'm going to try it here.

My, this argument must be fantastic!

Liberals have two main premises to their arguments: one, just because something will possibly go wrong doesn't mean it will necessarily go wrong; and two, you need evidence in order to prove that something will go wrong such that you don't have to participate in it.

What.

No, the premise to the argument is that maybe you should give a sh!t about other people.

By that logic, you should be forced to play Russian Roulette, potentially until you're dead.

What.

Why?

My question exactly.

In the game of Russian Roulette, every chamber isn't loaded with a bullet. Therefore, just because you might get shot doesn't mean you will get shot. Furthermore, you can't prove a shooting until a shooting happens, so until you get shot after experience, you have no evidence of shooting.

*beats head against tree* There is still a 1 in x chance of getting shot.

As an added bonus, liberals advocate social safety nets in case of things going wrong, so basically, they say that if you get shot, it's OK because the social safety net will be there to catch you...

Um, no. It's 'It's better to have a social safety net and be shot than be shot and not have a social safety net'. Ideally there would be no getting shot.

If liberals cared about other people, then they wouldn't expect people to conform to authority by mandating people participate in social programs. Instead, they would let people judge for themselves how to live their lives.

Not necessarily. Humans do stupid things sometimes, and many would argue that we have a duty to keep them from hurting themselves too badly.

Just because it's possible that people argue that doesn't mean that's necessarily valid. You're making an appeal to popularity.

Likewise, what's stupid to someone isn't automatically stupid to everyone, and the definition of "too badly" is subjective.

Fine. I would argue that.

As far as too badly, by 'too badly' I mean 'cause themselves irreparable harm so that they can't learn from their mistakes'.