Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The nationalist and the anarchist

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

Of course, this have nothing to do with the patriot or the anarchist overall, just in this particular case, when both attempt to force the other against their view, forcing someone away from the government or force them in to, which one is better or worse?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 10:34:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

I'll accept your premise just for the sake of discussion, but Voluntaryism is the opposite of what you've just described. And it's something easily demonstrated on Facebook pages: liberal pages will ban you for stating anything other than their dogma, conservative pages are split 50-50 in determining whether or not to ban you, and libertarian/voluntaryist pages opt to reason with intruders.

Of course, this have nothing to do with the patriot or the anarchist overall, just in this particular case, when both attempt to force the other against their view, forcing someone away from the government or force them in to, which one is better or worse?

If "better" is something that is obvious to most people, then the anarchist version would most likely be superior. Assuming the anarchists would allow a free market to naturally develop, the anarchist version would allow for better economic incentives for society to flourish. It would also be a moral societal construct (aside from the initial forcing), unlike the governmental option which relies on parasitic extortion and control tactics for its survival.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 10:46:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Both are misguided attempts to reduce the net amount of force / violence in the world by using force. This type of 'for the greater good' action is an exercise in compromising values, and only results in increasing force overall. This is why defending philosophy from consistent principles is important - and why an ideology should not take the form of a compromise. They are both wrong, but in different ways. The nationalist is deeply ignorant, and is slightly more consistent in his ignorance - promoting anarchism with force makes no sense whatsoever.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 10:50:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 10:34:30 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

I'll accept your premise just for the sake of discussion, but Voluntaryism is the opposite of what you've just described. And it's something easily demonstrated on Facebook pages: liberal pages will ban you for stating anything other than their dogma, conservative pages are split 50-50 in determining whether or not to ban you, and libertarian/voluntaryist pages opt to reason with intruders.

As an anarchist, I see absolutely no logical inconsistencies in forcing somebody to accept my viewpoint, whether verbally or through violence.

To combat the obvious objection, here's why:

I base my accepting of anarchy on unrestrained individual freedom (Stirner). Therefore, every individual has the freedom to do whatever they want and have whatever the will of others done upon them; the conception of rights does not exist. If my will is anarchy, I am fully capable of forcing this viewpoint on others.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:10:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 10:50:10 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/29/2013 10:34:30 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

I'll accept your premise just for the sake of discussion, but Voluntaryism is the opposite of what you've just described. And it's something easily demonstrated on Facebook pages: liberal pages will ban you for stating anything other than their dogma, conservative pages are split 50-50 in determining whether or not to ban you, and libertarian/voluntaryist pages opt to reason with intruders.

As an anarchist, I see absolutely no logical inconsistencies in forcing somebody to accept my viewpoint, whether verbally or through violence.

To combat the obvious objection, here's why:

I base my accepting of anarchy on unrestrained individual freedom (Stirner). Therefore, every individual has the freedom to do whatever they want and have whatever the will of others done upon them; the conception of rights does not exist. If my will is anarchy, I am fully capable of forcing this viewpoint on others.

Is this a moral principle, or simply a statement of reality? Ie: "People are able to do whatever they are able to do." If anything a person does is equally valid, then why state a philosophy? This basically boils down to a rejection of philosophy, ethics and responsibility altogether.

Should people take into account the effects of their actions, on the lives and happiness of themselves and others? What if it can be shown that any action involving initiating force can only effect those things negatively?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:12:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 10:50:10 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/29/2013 10:34:30 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

I'll accept your premise just for the sake of discussion, but Voluntaryism is the opposite of what you've just described. And it's something easily demonstrated on Facebook pages: liberal pages will ban you for stating anything other than their dogma, conservative pages are split 50-50 in determining whether or not to ban you, and libertarian/voluntaryist pages opt to reason with intruders.

As an anarchist, I see absolutely no logical inconsistencies in forcing somebody to accept my viewpoint, whether verbally or through violence.

To combat the obvious objection, here's why:

I base my accepting of anarchy on unrestrained individual freedom (Stirner). Therefore, every individual has the freedom to do whatever they want and have whatever the will of others done upon them; the conception of rights does not exist. If my will is anarchy, I am fully capable of forcing this viewpoint on others.

Good job bro. I'm sure that's what you actually want, too.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:43:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've actually long considered myself to be casting a shroud of darkness around myself with my smoking. And as a warning, say, but that conscientiousness has never really bested the bad feelings. But this is what Lordknukle is doing, too, I think, or something similar. He's trying to control the madness by subscribing to it.

And so I'd say nationalism is the superior ideology, but it does of course have its pitfalls, too. I personally preach world communism just for the sentiment of it.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:48:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
inb4 called an attention seeker and I've literally nearly killed myself like probably 100 times. inb4 called TheConqueror like in that poor parody of my communism debate with darkkermit done by Danielle and one of my other buddies. Grow up please retards. What's wrong is wrong.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:51:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Always had common sense so I did and always preached it to others, but of course what is sense and so I went exploring only to find that yeah I was right. You lot are retarded.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:56:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 11:10:02 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 7/29/2013 10:50:10 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/29/2013 10:34:30 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

I'll accept your premise just for the sake of discussion, but Voluntaryism is the opposite of what you've just described. And it's something easily demonstrated on Facebook pages: liberal pages will ban you for stating anything other than their dogma, conservative pages are split 50-50 in determining whether or not to ban you, and libertarian/voluntaryist pages opt to reason with intruders.

As an anarchist, I see absolutely no logical inconsistencies in forcing somebody to accept my viewpoint, whether verbally or through violence.

To combat the obvious objection, here's why:

I base my accepting of anarchy on unrestrained individual freedom (Stirner). Therefore, every individual has the freedom to do whatever they want and have whatever the will of others done upon them; the conception of rights does not exist. If my will is anarchy, I am fully capable of forcing this viewpoint on others.

Is this a moral principle, or simply a statement of reality? Ie: "People are able to do whatever they are able to do." If anything a person does is equally valid, then why state a philosophy? This basically boils down to a rejection of philosophy, ethics and responsibility altogether.

No moral, ethical, or philosophical statement has ever been a statement of reality.

Should people take into account the effects of their actions, on the lives and happiness of themselves and others?

If they want. People could utilize total freedom for polar opposite purposes. Some would go on killing sprees; others would help people.

What if it can be shown that any action involving initiating force can only effect those things negatively?

Total freedom entails the ability to do anything.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 11:59:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

Of course, this have nothing to do with the patriot or the anarchist overall, just in this particular case, when both attempt to force the other against their view, forcing someone away from the government or force them in to, which one is better or worse?

I would definitely say that anarchism is better. Anarchism promotes the rights of the individual, while nationalism is very collectivist, and attempts to tell you that the collective society you live in is superior to you, the individual.

Anarchism has its downsides, but it is more humanitarian on balance than nationalism.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:18:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

Of course, this have nothing to do with the patriot or the anarchist overall, just in this particular case, when both attempt to force the other against their view, forcing someone away from the government or force them in to, which one is better or worse?

Nationalists don't argue for loyalty to a country no matter the case. I'd consider myself nationalist, in that I believe that all nations (which refers to groups with cultural connections) deserve representation, and large enough groups deserve self-determination. Moreover, I'd support political nationalism, meaning you are part of a country if you accept the leadership and the judiciary and the legislation to enough of an extent that you'd prefer minor reform if anything over total revolution. However, one always ought to aim for reform to improve the nation and as a nationalist one has a duty to speak out and try to improve the state of affairs.

Essentially, you've picked the strawmen of the two ideologies rather than the actual meanings of them or proponents of the rational sides of each ideology.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:32:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 11:59:48 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

Of course, this have nothing to do with the patriot or the anarchist overall, just in this particular case, when both attempt to force the other against their view, forcing someone away from the government or force them in to, which one is better or worse?

I would definitely say that anarchism is better. Anarchism promotes the rights of the individual, while nationalism is very collectivist, and attempts to tell you that the collective society you live in is superior to you, the individual.

Anarchism has its downsides, but it is more humanitarian on balance than nationalism.

What a stupid post. Anarchy is let things fall where they may. Anarchy is Genghis Khan and his Mongols, nothing in place to stop them. Anarchy is Hitler trying to take over the world. Anarchy is just anarchy; simple as. But of course Hitler's campaign could be twisted to be a thing of nationalism, too, but insensibly, really, I think. The glorious considerations of nationalism are Us and Our. It's really bringing it home, and although misguidedly, there's a glorious sentiment there. Anarchy is just anarchy. Expand on the beautiful nationalistic sentiment of togetherness; don't crush it completely for its pitfalls.

'Alexander the Great expressed in his last will and testament the desire to see "transplant of populations from Asia to Europe and in the opposite direction from Europe to Asia, in order to bring the largest continent to common unity and to friendship by means of intermarriage and family ties." '

^This guy had some idea what the f*ck was going on.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:44:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:32:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 7/29/2013 11:59:48 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 7:43:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
who do you think are better or worse?

Provided that both do attempt to force other against their view to the idea. i.e. nationalist (as in patriot not racist), in this case would force anyone to be loyal to their country regardless of the case, while the anarchist in this case would force those who prefer the government to abandon one and join their rank.

Of course, this have nothing to do with the patriot or the anarchist overall, just in this particular case, when both attempt to force the other against their view, forcing someone away from the government or force them in to, which one is better or worse?

I would definitely say that anarchism is better. Anarchism promotes the rights of the individual, while nationalism is very collectivist, and attempts to tell you that the collective society you live in is superior to you, the individual.

Anarchism has its downsides, but it is more humanitarian on balance than nationalism.

What a stupid post. Anarchy is let things fall where they may. Anarchy is Genghis Khan and his Mongols, nothing in place to stop them. Anarchy is Hitler trying to take over the world. Anarchy is just anarchy; simple as. But of course Hitler's campaign could be twisted to be a thing of nationalism, too, but insensibly, really, I think. The glorious considerations of nationalism are Us and Our. It's really bringing it home, and although misguidedly, there's a glorious sentiment there. Anarchy is just anarchy. Expand on the beautiful nationalistic sentiment of togetherness; don't crush it completely for its pitfalls.

What a stupid individual. I really am so shocked that someone could spit out such propagandist fodder and call it an argument, but I guess you'll somehow think you won if I don't refute this.

Nationalism is by it's very nature collectivist, it is placing a group above the individual, which is the core ideal of collectivism. Has nationalism been used for supposedly 'good' things? Yes, of course it has, but I don't see how you could call Hitler's rule anarchy. Fascism and Anarchy are stark opposites, your argument is extremely absurd, if you are insinuating that anarchy is equivalent to weakness, and that is how Hitler and Khan came to power, you are also a blithering idiot. Anarcho-Capitalist societies(what I champion over your nationalism) would still have a military, you are equating appeasement (what caused WWII) with anarchism, which is a very poor strawman. How was Hitler's regime not nationalistic? Do you really think if people were thinking in their best interest as individuals (individualism) that they would have been willing to die for an absurd cause such as Hitler's? (collectivism)

'Alexander the Great expressed in his last will and testament the desire to see "transplant of populations from Asia to Europe and in the opposite direction from Europe to Asia, in order to bring the largest continent to common unity and to friendship by means of intermarriage and family ties." '

^This guy had some idea what the f*ck was going on.

"The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?

But I am done with this creed of corruption.

I am done with the monster of "We," the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.

And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.

This god, this one word:

"I."

-Ayn Rand, -Anthem

^This chick has an idea what she is talking about, not a murderous emperor imperialist.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:51:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anarchy is not to abolish the "We;" it is but to throw it to the wind. And hence Hitler's campaign being a thing of anarchy, a thing of division.

And wow Ayn Rand... you're a troll surely? Ayn Rand was just a retard who thought far, far too much of herself. People like to feel in control. She tried to imagine she'd tamed fire in her smoking and killed herself brutally with cancer.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:57:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:51:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Anarchy is not to abolish the "We;" it is but to throw it to the wind. And hence Hitler's campaign being a thing of anarchy, a thing of division.

You are once again trying to use the cheap strawman of anarchy where you see a mob of teenagers burning down houses and beating people up. That is not anarchy in it's true form.

And wow Ayn Rand... you're a troll surely? Ayn Rand was just a retard who thought far, far too much of herself. People like to feel in control. She tried to imagine she'd tamed fire in her smoking and killed herself brutally with cancer.

She was selfish, selfishness is something we need in this society, look where altruism has taken us. Also, I guess a murderous emperor and imperialist is the epithet of morality.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 12:59:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course I don't know very much about Alexander the Great outside of that quote, but what's expressed in that quote is a sentiment I can very much understand. Ayn Rand is just completely a non<x>starter. And wow that word owns having looked up the definition of it.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:00:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:57:26 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:51:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Anarchy is not to abolish the "We;" it is but to throw it to the wind. And hence Hitler's campaign being a thing of anarchy, a thing of division.

You are once again trying to use the cheap strawman of anarchy where you see a mob of teenagers burning down houses and beating people up. That is not anarchy in it's true form.

What is anarchy in its true form then?

And wow Ayn Rand... you're a troll surely? Ayn Rand was just a retard who thought far, far too much of herself. People like to feel in control. She tried to imagine she'd tamed fire in her smoking and killed herself brutally with cancer.

She was selfish, selfishness is something we need in this society, look where altruism has taken us. Also, I guess a murderous emperor and imperialist is the epithet of morality.

No it isn't. Selfishness built the nuclear bomb.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:01:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 12:59:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Of course I don't know very much about Alexander the Great outside of that quote, but what's expressed in that quote is a sentiment I can very much understand. Ayn Rand is just completely a non<x>starter. And wow that word owns having looked up the definition of it.

I guess if you champion the idea of imperialism and collectivism then you have no reason to be afraid of quoting Alexander the Great without backlash.

I am happy quoting Ayn Rand as I know what she stands for.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:05:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ayn Rand could be mundane at times, and therefore to really like her you have to have an open mind and have a true love of philosophy and politics, as she does not attempt to get herself out there by means of manipulating controversial events for publicity, or things like that. She was very straightforward with her message.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:01:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:59:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Of course I don't know very much about Alexander the Great outside of that quote, but what's expressed in that quote is a sentiment I can very much understand. Ayn Rand is just completely a non<x>starter. And wow that word owns having looked up the definition of it.

I guess if you champion the idea of imperialism and collectivism then you have no reason to be afraid of quoting Alexander the Great without backlash.

I am happy quoting Ayn Rand as I know what she stands for.

I do not champion military force. Strawman much?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:07:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:05:40 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Ayn Rand could be mundane at times, and therefore to really like her you have to have an open mind and have a true love of philosophy and politics, as she does not attempt to get herself out there by means of manipulating controversial events for publicity, or things like that. She was very straightforward with her message.

She was a retard bro. There is no God in "I;" what about everybody else?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:08:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:00:46 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:57:26 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:51:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Anarchy is not to abolish the "We;" it is but to throw it to the wind. And hence Hitler's campaign being a thing of anarchy, a thing of division.

You are once again trying to use the cheap strawman of anarchy where you see a mob of teenagers burning down houses and beating people up. That is not anarchy in it's true form.

What is anarchy in its true form then?

There are multiple forms. I would start you out on the Free Territory, which was the first large scale version of anarchy in action.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And wow Ayn Rand... you're a troll surely? Ayn Rand was just a retard who thought far, far too much of herself. People like to feel in control. She tried to imagine she'd tamed fire in her smoking and killed herself brutally with cancer.

She was selfish, selfishness is something we need in this society, look where altruism has taken us. Also, I guess a murderous emperor and imperialist is the epithet of morality.

No it isn't. Selfishness built the nuclear bomb.

No, altruism did.

Since you said selfishness did you have to prove that, although I will give my two cents on why altruism did.

Would you kill thousands of people to defend your friend, or one person? No.

Would you kill thousands of people under the guise of morality, an ideology, or supposedly 'defending' your nation?

Most would.

That is why altruism can be used for both vile things and good things, there has to be a reasonable balance.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:10:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is a f*cking tautology that selfishness built the nuclear bomb over altruism. Jesus Christ.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:11:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:05:49 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:01:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:59:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Of course I don't know very much about Alexander the Great outside of that quote, but what's expressed in that quote is a sentiment I can very much understand. Ayn Rand is just completely a non<x>starter. And wow that word owns having looked up the definition of it.

I guess if you champion the idea of imperialism and collectivism then you have no reason to be afraid of quoting Alexander the Great without backlash.

I am happy quoting Ayn Rand as I know what she stands for.

I do not champion military force. Strawman much?

Then why are you quoting someone who used your brilliant idea of collectivism and altruism to conquer other people?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:11:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:07:56 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:05:40 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Ayn Rand could be mundane at times, and therefore to really like her you have to have an open mind and have a true love of philosophy and politics, as she does not attempt to get herself out there by means of manipulating controversial events for publicity, or things like that. She was very straightforward with her message.

She was a retard bro. There is no God in "I;" what about everybody else?

There is no god period, but that's for another day.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:12:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:11:00 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:05:49 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:01:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:59:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Of course I don't know very much about Alexander the Great outside of that quote, but what's expressed in that quote is a sentiment I can very much understand. Ayn Rand is just completely a non<x>starter. And wow that word owns having looked up the definition of it.

I guess if you champion the idea of imperialism and collectivism then you have no reason to be afraid of quoting Alexander the Great without backlash.

I am happy quoting Ayn Rand as I know what she stands for.

I do not champion military force. Strawman much?

Then why are you quoting someone who used your brilliant idea of collectivism and altruism to conquer other people?

You're still strawmanning. I can agree with the end he sought after but not the means by which he did.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:14:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:12:05 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:11:00 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:05:49 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:01:58 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 12:59:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Of course I don't know very much about Alexander the Great outside of that quote, but what's expressed in that quote is a sentiment I can very much understand. Ayn Rand is just completely a non<x>starter. And wow that word owns having looked up the definition of it.

I guess if you champion the idea of imperialism and collectivism then you have no reason to be afraid of quoting Alexander the Great without backlash.

I am happy quoting Ayn Rand as I know what she stands for.

I do not champion military force. Strawman much?

Then why are you quoting someone who used your brilliant idea of collectivism and altruism to conquer other people?

You're still strawmanning. I can agree with the end he sought after but not the means by which he did.

Straw-manning would be arguing against a point you didn't even make, you made a point by quoting Alexander the Great as a reputable source of morality and information.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 1:15:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 1:11:52 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:07:56 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 7/29/2013 1:05:40 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Ayn Rand could be mundane at times, and therefore to really like her you have to have an open mind and have a true love of philosophy and politics, as she does not attempt to get herself out there by means of manipulating controversial events for publicity, or things like that. She was very straightforward with her message.

She was a retard bro. There is no God in "I;" what about everybody else?

There is no god period, but that's for another day.

And here we have intellectual dishonesty taken to godly proportion. Strawmanning again pretty much.