Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Politicians and Sex

YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 10:39:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There was once a time that when politicians had affairs, there was a general understanding that such matters were improper to discuss. That was true, at least, until Bill Clinton. Virtually every president young enough to get it up, with the possible exception of the Bush's and Jimmy Carter, had affairs.

So, do you think that a politician's sex life is something you have any business knowing about? Why?

Now that we scrutinize every nuance of our politicians' sex lives, do you think that political discourse is better for doing so?

In a less related note, how would you feel about a gay/lesbian president?
Tsar of DDO
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 11:06:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 10:39:47 PM, YYW wrote:
There was once a time that when politicians had affairs, there was a general understanding that such matters were improper to discuss. That was true, at least, until Bill Clinton. Virtually every president young enough to get it up, with the possible exception of the Bush's and Jimmy Carter, had affairs.

So, do you think that a politician's sex life is something you have any business knowing about? Why?

Now that we scrutinize every nuance of our politicians' sex lives, do you think that political discourse is better for doing so?

In a less related note, how would you feel about a gay/lesbian president?

I could really care less about what a politician's sexual orientation is or who he/she has sexual relations with. As long as they don't try to impose it on the people via legislation.

However, If a politician is married and cheats own his wife (adultery), then yes, the people who elected him/her should have the right to know this. Not only does this show blatant infidelity but it also speaks volumes about his/her character. This may or may not affect his political decisions but as a rule of thumb, it would be ethical to fulfill this moral obligation since marriage is still deeply ingrained in our society.

I wouldn't agree with a homosexual president (for religious reasons) but if one happens to get elected in the future and can run the country adequately, then I don't see a problem with it.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 11:54:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Infidelity in marriage does not necessarily translate to any consequences in competency to governing, nor does is alter the assiduity with which a politician does his job. All this talk about "character," is nonsense, as it implies principles are transferrable from completely different situations.
"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."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 12:03:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 11:54:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Infidelity in marriage does not necessarily translate to any consequences in competency to governing, nor does is alter the assiduity with which a politician does his job. All this talk about "character," is nonsense, as it implies principles are transferrable from completely different situations.

I disagree. It implies a willingness to break trust and obligations that are considered by many people to be sacred.

I'm just not sure how comfortable I would be with invading an official's privacy to sniff out such allegations. After they are discovered, then what? Are you going to try the politician for adultery, which is in most states legal? Are you going to hire someone like Ken Starr to ask about cigars and phone sex in what becomes nothing more than a smear campaign?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 12:30:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 11:54:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Infidelity in marriage does not necessarily translate to any consequences in competency to governing, nor does is alter the assiduity with which a politician does his job. All this talk about "character," is nonsense, as it implies principles are transferrable from completely different situations.

In some sense, I understand what you're saying and more or less agree with it -but I think there is a more imminent point to be made. But, to say that a man or woman would cheat on their spouse is not to say that they are a morally base person, or that even if given the opportunity, that an unfaithful politician would betray their constituency. So, while it is the case that marital infidelity and, for example, tax fraud (which so many politicians seem to engage in, for reasons beyond my comprehension) are both forms of betrayal, they are different kinds of betrayal. The argument that if a politician cannot keep his house in order, that he cannot govern properly -I think- is more or less an absurd one because political offices are not spousal relationships, nor do they entail the same kind of commitments, responsibilities, duties, etc. (I think this may have to do with the fact that if forced to choose between my valuing love or even a marriage and country, I'd choose the latter over the former two every time in a preferential ordering.)

I have generally found, also, that those who think of adultery as the most significant betrayal to be had in a relationship, fail to recognize what adultery actually means. Cheating does not happen without a prior problem that would cause a person to be willing to break whatever commitment to their spouse that they had. That problem, whatever it may be (that is, the reason for adultery -rather than the adultery itself) is what is significant -and adultery is just the sufficient indication that the problem is there. Relationships begin to break down when reasons like those which would cause a person to be willing to cheat begin to surface, not because a person actually cheated. That to say this, those reasons don't have much to do with an individual's character in a general sense, but rather with problems that couples have mutually.

All of this I say, of course, never having been married, but only for having seen numerous friend's parents get divorced over the years.
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 12:35:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 12:03:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/12/2013 11:54:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Infidelity in marriage does not necessarily translate to any consequences in competency to governing, nor does is alter the assiduity with which a politician does his job. All this talk about "character," is nonsense, as it implies principles are transferrable from completely different situations.

I disagree. It implies a willingness to break trust and obligations that are considered by many people to be sacred.

People don't break obligations willy-nilly for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There is always an underlying reason for adultery, and most often it relates to the husband-wife dynamic. This dynamic is (obviously) not applicable to politics, and therefore, the underlying principles that cause adultery are not transferrable to a completely separate field
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 12:39:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 12:30:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/12/2013 11:54:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Infidelity in marriage does not necessarily translate to any consequences in competency to governing, nor does is alter the assiduity with which a politician does his job. All this talk about "character," is nonsense, as it implies principles are transferrable from completely different situations.

In some sense, I understand what you're saying and more or less agree with it -but I think there is a more imminent point to be made. But, to say that a man or woman would cheat on their spouse is not to say that they are a morally base person, or that even if given the opportunity, that an unfaithful politician would betray their constituency. So, while it is the case that marital infidelity and, for example, tax fraud (which so many politicians seem to engage in, for reasons beyond my comprehension) are both forms of betrayal, they are different kinds of betrayal. The argument that if a politician cannot keep his house in order, that he cannot govern properly -I think- is more or less an absurd one because political offices are not spousal relationships, nor do they entail the same kind of commitments, responsibilities, duties, etc. (I think this may have to do with the fact that if forced to choose between my valuing love or even a marriage and country, I'd choose the latter over the former two every time in a preferential ordering.)

I have generally found, also, that those who think of adultery as the most significant betrayal to be had in a relationship, fail to recognize what adultery actually means. Cheating does not happen without a prior problem that would cause a person to be willing to break whatever commitment to their spouse that they had. That problem, whatever it may be (that is, the reason for adultery -rather than the adultery itself) is what is significant -and adultery is just the sufficient indication that the problem is there. Relationships begin to break down when reasons like those which would cause a person to be willing to cheat begin to surface, not because a person actually cheated. That to say this, those reasons don't have much to do with an individual's character in a general sense, but rather with problems that couples have mutually.

All of this I say, of course, never having been married, but only for having seen numerous friend's parents get divorced over the years.

This is pretty much my argument, except a lot more eloquently put. Fully agree.
"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."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 12:45:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 12:35:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/13/2013 12:03:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/12/2013 11:54:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Infidelity in marriage does not necessarily translate to any consequences in competency to governing, nor does is alter the assiduity with which a politician does his job. All this talk about "character," is nonsense, as it implies principles are transferrable from completely different situations.

I disagree. It implies a willingness to break trust and obligations that are considered by many people to be sacred.

People don't break obligations willy-nilly for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There is always an underlying reason for adultery, and most often it relates to the husband-wife dynamic. This dynamic is (obviously) not applicable to politics, and therefore, the underlying principles that cause adultery are not transferrable to a completely separate field

I disagree with this as well. It could have more to do with the propensity of either party for promiscuity.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 1:54:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyone who'd try and succeed to become the 'ruler of people' is going to have a pretty insane mindset in the first place.. I think infidelity would pale in comparison to the rest of their character flaws. Most people (especially socialists) probably wouldn't have a concept of this; because the absurdity of being 'ruled' is abstracted, but as a person gets deeper into the system, this would manifest in more obvious ways, which a person would need to be some sort of psychopath to ignore.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 4:11:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 10:39:47 PM, YYW wrote:
There was once a time that when politicians had affairs, there was a general understanding that such matters were improper to discuss. That was true, at least, until Bill Clinton. Virtually every president young enough to get it up, with the possible exception of the Bush's and Jimmy Carter, had affairs.

So, do you think that a politician's sex life is something you have any business knowing about? Why?

Now that we scrutinize every nuance of our politicians' sex lives, do you think that political discourse is better for doing so?

In a less related note, how would you feel about a gay/lesbian president?

Hello YYW,

A good topic of discussion, well raised sir!

I must say that on this side of the pond we have had our fair shore of sexually promiscuous leaders too, not in the least to mention John Major (source 1).

Although his situation was different, he based his campaign upon family values, and then proceeded to have a jolly romp with his secretary. The travesty was not so much the affair in and of itself, but that blantent and purposeful hypocrisy was the real issue in this instance.

The of course there was the profumo affair (source 2) which involved a British member of parliament having an affair with, what was essentially, a soviet spy during the peak of the cold war. This obviously raises the issue of national security and compounds the issue further.

Nonetheless despite this, I would not encourage the act of seeking 'dirty information' on a leader, obviously the free press has a right to investigate and this is essential to the ideal of a democracy, but personally if they are good at the job so be it, it bothers me not how they choose to arrange thier personal affairs.

Quite frankly I would not want my boss judging my legitimacy for a promotion on the basis of my sexual promiscuity, I would rather they do it on the basis that I am valuable to the organization.

I take no issue with a Gay/Lesbian leader, in fact I would take it as a sign of progress.

Kindest Regards,
Ben

Source 1:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Source 2:
http://www.mirror.co.uk...
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 4:53:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 1:54:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
Anyone who'd try and succeed to become the 'ruler of people' is going to have a pretty insane mindset in the first place.. I think infidelity would pale in comparison to the rest of their character flaws. Most people (especially socialists) probably wouldn't have a concept of this; because the absurdity of being 'ruled' is abstracted, but as a person gets deeper into the system, this would manifest in more obvious ways, which a person would need to be some sort of psychopath to ignore.

IMHO this is utter bunk. What about the concept of "head of household"? It's a microcosm of what you deem a form of insanity.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 5:02:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 4:11:17 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/12/2013 10:39:47 PM, YYW wrote:

Quite frankly I would not want my boss judging my legitimacy for a promotion on the basis of my sexual promiscuity, I would rather they do it on the basis that I am valuable to the organization.

lol, I would disagree with this too (seems I'm disagreeing with nearly everyone in this thread).

This goes to what a marriage stands for. Traditionally, a marriage is the foundation for family creation, and the bonds of marriage, those contractual obligations to each spouse, form the conditions by which a healthy family is raised. When those bonds are broken, it implies an unhealthy family, which IMHO ferments the situation where societal degradation commences...this slippery slope line of thinking stems from the broken window theory being utilized in my current team debate.

I do agree with just about everyone here though that I don't see any reason to discriminate against an LGBT politician ceteris paribus. I would discriminate against anyone, gay or straight, who would break the traditional bonds of family creation, would view such breakage as irresponsible, and would hold the politician accountable...an opinion of which is my right to freely hold. I don't see an LGBT marriage/civil union as breaking those bonds, but I would see infidelity in such an union, especially if infidelity was not allowed, as being a moral transgression.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:02:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 10:39:47 PM, YYW wrote:
There was once a time that when politicians had affairs, there was a general understanding that such matters were improper to discuss. That was true, at least, until Bill Clinton. Virtually every president young enough to get it up, with the possible exception of the Bush's and Jimmy Carter, had affairs.

So, do you think that a politician's sex life is something you have any business knowing about? Why?

With leadership. character matters more than anything else, infidelity is a breach of trust and we don't want leaders we can't trust. We assume consistency between words and actions when we vote and finding out a person is inclined to betray trust matters a ton. It also can put the leader into a compromising position which effects their ability to govern, Clinton bombing Afghanistan and Syria to divert attention from the Lewinski scandal is an example. In general, secrecy and fear of getting caught can have a compromising effect on rational decision making. The problem with overlooking a leader's character because of self interests is that the lack of character can come into play on future decisions, there are bound to be new situations that can't be predicted but where trust and character are requisite for the constituency's best interest. They say Mussolini came to power because he got the trains to run on time, but in the end, his character certainly mattered,

Now that we scrutinize every nuance of our politicians' sex lives, do you think that political discourse is better for doing so?

No, it's become too much a focus, we tend to become obsessed with such things and other things matter too, single issue politics and our obsessions with scandals make for unbalanced and irrational discourse. When political discourse plays to fear and/or anger, it becomes less rational and more prone to distraction and manipulation.

In a less related note, how would you feel about a gay/lesbian president?

If competent and qualified, that wouldn't matter.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:06:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 4:53:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 1:54:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
Anyone who'd try and succeed to become the 'ruler of people' is going to have a pretty insane mindset in the first place.. I think infidelity would pale in comparison to the rest of their character flaws. Most people (especially socialists) probably wouldn't have a concept of this; because the absurdity of being 'ruled' is abstracted, but as a person gets deeper into the system, this would manifest in more obvious ways, which a person would need to be some sort of psychopath to ignore.

IMHO this is utter bunk. What about the concept of "head of household"? It's a microcosm of what you deem a form of insanity.

A household is not inherently immoral. A government is built around an immoral concept, to achieve an immoral goal; controlling other people.. and so it's leader must be pretty insane to achieve that position. A household is just people trying to exist of their own accord, not involving the rest of society, and certainly not trying to control and govern it's actions. A more accurate comparison would be head of the mafia, or something.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:07:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:06:00 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 4:53:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 1:54:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
Anyone who'd try and succeed to become the 'ruler of people' is going to have a pretty insane mindset in the first place.. I think infidelity would pale in comparison to the rest of their character flaws. Most people (especially socialists) probably wouldn't have a concept of this; because the absurdity of being 'ruled' is abstracted, but as a person gets deeper into the system, this would manifest in more obvious ways, which a person would need to be some sort of psychopath to ignore.

IMHO this is utter bunk. What about the concept of "head of household"? It's a microcosm of what you deem a form of insanity.

A household is not inherently immoral. A government is built around an immoral concept, to achieve an immoral goal; controlling other people.. and so it's leader must be pretty insane to achieve that position. A household is just people trying to exist of their own accord, not involving the rest of society, and certainly not trying to control and govern it's actions. A more accurate comparison would be head of the mafia, or something.

Strawman. The point is not about a household, but the "head of household", who does have a good amount of control over the members of his/her household in a similar fashion to a leader.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:10:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:07:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:06:00 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 4:53:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 1:54:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
Anyone who'd try and succeed to become the 'ruler of people' is going to have a pretty insane mindset in the first place.. I think infidelity would pale in comparison to the rest of their character flaws. Most people (especially socialists) probably wouldn't have a concept of this; because the absurdity of being 'ruled' is abstracted, but as a person gets deeper into the system, this would manifest in more obvious ways, which a person would need to be some sort of psychopath to ignore.

IMHO this is utter bunk. What about the concept of "head of household"? It's a microcosm of what you deem a form of insanity.

A household is not inherently immoral. A government is built around an immoral concept, to achieve an immoral goal; controlling other people.. and so it's leader must be pretty insane to achieve that position. A household is just people trying to exist of their own accord, not involving the rest of society, and certainly not trying to control and govern it's actions. A more accurate comparison would be head of the mafia, or something.

Strawman. The point is not about a household, but the "head of household", who does have a good amount of control over the members of his/her household in a similar fashion to a leader.

Not in the sense of actual force though, apart from perhaps toward the very young children, which I'd say is not necessarily immoral.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:11:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 5:02:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 4:11:17 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/12/2013 10:39:47 PM, YYW wrote:

Quite frankly I would not want my boss judging my legitimacy for a promotion on the basis of my sexual promiscuity, I would rather they do it on the basis that I am valuable to the organization.

lol, I would disagree with this too (seems I'm disagreeing with nearly everyone in this thread).

This goes to what a marriage stands for. Traditionally, a marriage is the foundation for family creation, and the bonds of marriage, those contractual obligations to each spouse, form the conditions by which a healthy family is raised. When those bonds are broken, it implies an unhealthy family, which IMHO ferments the situation where societal degradation commences...this slippery slope line of thinking stems from the broken window theory being utilized in my current team debate.

I do agree with just about everyone here though that I don't see any reason to discriminate against an LGBT politician ceteris paribus. I would discriminate against anyone, gay or straight, who would break the traditional bonds of family creation, would view such breakage as irresponsible, and would hold the politician accountable...an opinion of which is my right to freely hold. I don't see an LGBT marriage/civil union as breaking those bonds, but I would see infidelity in such an union, especially if infidelity was not allowed, as being a moral transgression.

Hello Wrichcirw,

I hope you're well,

I would agree in so much as that those who value marriage would see it as a core basis for family creation, I wouldn't be brash enough to refute this without further evidence and I'm not fully convinced there would be enough.

However, this point on soceital degradation is an interesting one, My specific point was that if I had an affair I would not want that to impact upon my proffesional career, and I do not beleiive there is any evidence for such action to demonstrate I am not a worthy employee, this is because there are so many factors and moral questions when one is having an affair, it would be reductionist or even a generalization, I would submit, to say the 'all people who have affairs show irresponsiblity' (source 1) I am sure it is more complex than that, and we begin to enter a moral discussion on pragmatism, and the lesser evils.

There is an additional point to make that I believe drives to the heart of this, as someone who does not personally value marriage in any sense, my position on those who break the bond of it will possibly be not nearly as judicial as perhapes someone who does value its contribution to society.

For example I could very well submit that a society filled with unhappy marriages is not conjusive to progress, ergo, we should have fewer marriages, as liberal and progressive societies tend to have fewer marriages and increase in divorce rates. (source 2 a, b)

Given the number of societies with low marriage rates and high divorce rates such as the UK, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, France the USA, while all scoring very high on the democracy index (source 3) one must conclude that Marriage has little impact on the health of a society, or at least a free democratic one.

The amount of interesting statistics I found inmy research is quite amazing, I may well complie them at some point.

Anyway, to conclude I would submit that Marriage, or infedelity is not so valuable to our society that it should impact our ability to be promoted/elected, although I would never take away from the commitment many people around the world make to one another, this is by no way an intended attack upon marriage. I hope that isn't too contradictary sir.

Best of Regards,
Ben

Source 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Source 2:

a) Marriage rates
Part 1 - Highest Marriage rates
http://www.mapsofworld.com...
Part 2 - Lowest Marriage rates
http://www.nydailynews.com...

b) Divorce rates
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Source 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:16:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:10:54 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:07:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:06:00 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 4:53:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 1:54:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
Anyone who'd try and succeed to become the 'ruler of people' is going to have a pretty insane mindset in the first place.. I think infidelity would pale in comparison to the rest of their character flaws. Most people (especially socialists) probably wouldn't have a concept of this; because the absurdity of being 'ruled' is abstracted, but as a person gets deeper into the system, this would manifest in more obvious ways, which a person would need to be some sort of psychopath to ignore.

IMHO this is utter bunk. What about the concept of "head of household"? It's a microcosm of what you deem a form of insanity.

A household is not inherently immoral. A government is built around an immoral concept, to achieve an immoral goal; controlling other people.. and so it's leader must be pretty insane to achieve that position. A household is just people trying to exist of their own accord, not involving the rest of society, and certainly not trying to control and govern it's actions. A more accurate comparison would be head of the mafia, or something.

Strawman. The point is not about a household, but the "head of household", who does have a good amount of control over the members of his/her household in a similar fashion to a leader.

Not in the sense of actual force though, apart from perhaps toward the very young children, which I'd say is not necessarily immoral.

How is that not immoral according to how you frame NAP? Is that not the same form of insanity you attribute to government leaders?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:28:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:16:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:10:54 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:07:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:06:00 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 4:53:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 1:54:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
Anyone who'd try and succeed to become the 'ruler of people' is going to have a pretty insane mindset in the first place.. I think infidelity would pale in comparison to the rest of their character flaws. Most people (especially socialists) probably wouldn't have a concept of this; because the absurdity of being 'ruled' is abstracted, but as a person gets deeper into the system, this would manifest in more obvious ways, which a person would need to be some sort of psychopath to ignore.

IMHO this is utter bunk. What about the concept of "head of household"? It's a microcosm of what you deem a form of insanity.

A household is not inherently immoral. A government is built around an immoral concept, to achieve an immoral goal; controlling other people.. and so it's leader must be pretty insane to achieve that position. A household is just people trying to exist of their own accord, not involving the rest of society, and certainly not trying to control and govern it's actions. A more accurate comparison would be head of the mafia, or something.

Strawman. The point is not about a household, but the "head of household", who does have a good amount of control over the members of his/her household in a similar fashion to a leader.

Not in the sense of actual force though, apart from perhaps toward the very young children, which I'd say is not necessarily immoral.

How is that not immoral according to how you frame NAP? Is that not the same form of insanity you attribute to government leaders?

A government leader is controlling fully able people, with nothing to do with them. A parent is looking after a child who's too young to be rational yet, who the parent themselves brought into the world. It's a totally different thing, imposing taxes and regulations on people, and taking care of your own baby, who is too young to do anything for himself.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:30:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:11:21 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/13/2013 5:02:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 4:11:17 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/12/2013 10:39:47 PM, YYW wrote:

Quite frankly I would not want my boss judging my legitimacy for a promotion on the basis of my sexual promiscuity, I would rather they do it on the basis that I am valuable to the organization.

lol, I would disagree with this too (seems I'm disagreeing with nearly everyone in this thread).

This goes to what a marriage stands for. Traditionally, a marriage is the foundation for family creation, and the bonds of marriage, those contractual obligations to each spouse, form the conditions by which a healthy family is raised. When those bonds are broken, it implies an unhealthy family, which IMHO ferments the situation where societal degradation commences...this slippery slope line of thinking stems from the broken window theory being utilized in my current team debate.

I do agree with just about everyone here though that I don't see any reason to discriminate against an LGBT politician ceteris paribus. I would discriminate against anyone, gay or straight, who would break the traditional bonds of family creation, would view such breakage as irresponsible, and would hold the politician accountable...an opinion of which is my right to freely hold. I don't see an LGBT marriage/civil union as breaking those bonds, but I would see infidelity in such an union, especially if infidelity was not allowed, as being a moral transgression.

Hello Wrichcirw,

I hope you're well,

Likewise, lol. =)

I would agree in so much as that those who value marriage would see it as a core basis for family creation, I wouldn't be brash enough to refute this without further evidence and I'm not fully convinced there would be enough.

However, this point on soceital degradation is an interesting one, My specific point was that if I had an affair I would not want that to impact upon my proffesional career, and I do not beleiive there is any evidence for such action to demonstrate I am not a worthy employee, this is because there are so many factors and moral questions when one is having an affair, it would be reductionist or even a generalization, I would submit, to say the 'all people who have affairs show irresponsiblity' (source 1) I am sure it is more complex than that, and we begin to enter a moral discussion on pragmatism, and the lesser evils.

I would fully agree with your assertion in every other profession outside of something like politics, that deals so intimately with societal issues to no small degree. In politics, I see the politician as setting an example, specifically in this case an example of good societal values. I would see infidelity as an unnecessary ding to such an image.

I do not see the relevancy of one's personal life in regards to being a tax lawyer, or a policeman, as long as that personal life did not impact job performance (addictive drugs or alcoholism for example would impact job performance). I do hold a politician to a different standard.

There is an additional point to make that I believe drives to the heart of this, as someone who does not personally value marriage in any sense, my position on those who break the bond of it will possibly be not nearly as judicial as perhapes someone who does value its contribution to society.

For example I could very well submit that a society filled with unhappy marriages is not conjusive to progress, ergo, we should have fewer marriages, as liberal and progressive societies tend to have fewer marriages and increase in divorce rates. (source 2 a, b)

Given the number of societies with low marriage rates and high divorce rates such as the UK, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, France the USA, while all scoring very high on the democracy index (source 3) one must conclude that Marriage has little impact on the health of a society, or at least a free democratic one.

But it does, doesn't it? Especially if you view the act of family creation as an act that forwards the interests of a society. I know the following issue is quite complicated, and I argued it in a different vein on a recent debate, but birth rates have precipitously declined in correlation with your statistics on marriage rate decline. This presents a problem for any country that aims to effectively project power in the world stage in that ceteris paribus (i.e. same per capita income rates), a growing population will more effectively project power than a shrinking population.

http://www.forbes.com...

The amount of interesting statistics I found inmy research is quite amazing, I may well complie them at some point.

Anyway, to conclude I would submit that Marriage, or infedelity is not so valuable to our society that it should impact our ability to be promoted/elected, although I would never take away from the commitment many people around the world make to one another, this is by no way an intended attack upon marriage. I hope that isn't too contradictary sir.

I will maintain otherwise, and best regards to you too. =)

Best of Regards,
Ben

Source 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Source 2:

a) Marriage rates
Part 1 - Highest Marriage rates
http://www.mapsofworld.com...
Part 2 - Lowest Marriage rates
http://www.nydailynews.com...

b) Divorce rates
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Source 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:36:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:28:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:16:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Strawman. The point is not about a household, but the "head of household", who does have a good amount of control over the members of his/her household in a similar fashion to a leader.

Not in the sense of actual force though, apart from perhaps toward the very young children, which I'd say is not necessarily immoral.

How is that not immoral according to how you frame NAP? Is that not the same form of insanity you attribute to government leaders?

A government leader is controlling fully able people, with nothing to do with them.

If someone was "fully able" why wouldn't they be able to provide for their own self-defense? Why would a military be necessary, for example? It is precisely because no one individual can adequately provide for their own self-defense, when a cohesive unit is much more effective, i.e. "whole is worth more than the sum of its parts". I will assert that a government leader is controlling people that are less than fully able, in a similar fashion to a head of household controlling less than fully able individuals.

A parent is looking after a child who's too young to be rational yet, who the parent themselves brought into the world. It's a totally different thing, imposing taxes and regulations on people, and taking care of your own baby, who is too young to do anything for himself.

A government is looking after citizens who are incapable of self-defense.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:44:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:36:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:28:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:16:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Strawman. The point is not about a household, but the "head of household", who does have a good amount of control over the members of his/her household in a similar fashion to a leader.

Not in the sense of actual force though, apart from perhaps toward the very young children, which I'd say is not necessarily immoral.

How is that not immoral according to how you frame NAP? Is that not the same form of insanity you attribute to government leaders?

A government leader is controlling fully able people, with nothing to do with them.

If someone was "fully able" why wouldn't they be able to provide for their own self-defense? Why would a military be necessary, for example? It is precisely because no one individual can adequately provide for their own self-defense, when a cohesive unit is much more effective, i.e. "whole is worth more than the sum of its parts". I will assert that a government leader is controlling people that are less than fully able, in a similar fashion to a head of household controlling less than fully able individuals.

A parent is looking after a child who's too young to be rational yet, who the parent themselves brought into the world. It's a totally different thing, imposing taxes and regulations on people, and taking care of your own baby, who is too young to do anything for himself.

A government is looking after citizens who are incapable of self-defense.

The NAP only disallows initiation of force, not defense or retaliation. If Government were limited only to roles which promoted defense, and were not paid for by tax, I'd be okay with it.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:48:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:44:38 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:36:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

A government is looking after citizens who are incapable of self-defense.

The NAP only disallows initiation of force, not defense or retaliation. If Government were limited only to roles which promoted defense, and were not paid for by tax, I'd be okay with it.

How can the government fulfill its function without collecting taxes? Perhaps you can run a successful business without incurring any profits, too? Or eat a full meal without any food? Or quench your thirst without any H2O (food is primarily composed of water)?

Again, I will maintain that the charge that a government leader is insane is total bunk.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:50:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:30:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:11:21 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/13/2013 5:02:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 4:11:17 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/12/2013 10:39:47 PM, YYW wrote:

Quite frankly I would not want my boss judging my legitimacy for a promotion on the basis of my sexual promiscuity, I would rather they do it on the basis that I am valuable to the organization.

lol, I would disagree with this too (seems I'm disagreeing with nearly everyone in this thread).

This goes to what a marriage stands for. Traditionally, a marriage is the foundation for family creation, and the bonds of marriage, those contractual obligations to each spouse, form the conditions by which a healthy family is raised. When those bonds are broken, it implies an unhealthy family, which IMHO ferments the situation where societal degradation commences...this slippery slope line of thinking stems from the broken window theory being utilized in my current team debate.

I do agree with just about everyone here though that I don't see any reason to discriminate against an LGBT politician ceteris paribus. I would discriminate against anyone, gay or straight, who would break the traditional bonds of family creation, would view such breakage as irresponsible, and would hold the politician accountable...an opinion of which is my right to freely hold. I don't see an LGBT marriage/civil union as breaking those bonds, but I would see infidelity in such an union, especially if infidelity was not allowed, as being a moral transgression.

Hello Wrichcirw,

I hope you're well,

Likewise, lol. =)


I am well thank you sir,

I would agree in so much as that those who value marriage would see it as a core basis for family creation, I wouldn't be brash enough to refute this without further evidence and I'm not fully convinced there would be enough.

However, this point on soceital degradation is an interesting one, My specific point was that if I had an affair I would not want that to impact upon my proffesional career, and I do not beleiive there is any evidence for such action to demonstrate I am not a worthy employee, this is because there are so many factors and moral questions when one is having an affair, it would be reductionist or even a generalization, I would submit, to say the 'all people who have affairs show irresponsiblity' (source 1) I am sure it is more complex than that, and we begin to enter a moral discussion on pragmatism, and the lesser evils.

I would fully agree with your assertion in every other profession outside of something like politics, that deals so intimately with societal issues to no small degree. In politics, I see the politician as setting an example, specifically in this case an example of good societal values. I would see infidelity as an unnecessary ding to such an image.

I do not see the relevancy of one's personal life in regards to being a tax lawyer, or a policeman, as long as that personal life did not impact job performance (addictive drugs or alcoholism for example would impact job performance). I do hold a politician to a different standard.


A good point, I shall think on this further, as it comes to a different point about 'what is a politicians role in society.' A simple enough question of which I am sure the core tenenats could be agreed upon, but there are some 'fluffy' areas around moral authority, if such a thing exists.

There is an additional point to make that I believe drives to the heart of this, as someone who does not personally value marriage in any sense, my position on those who break the bond of it will possibly be not nearly as judicial as perhapes someone who does value its contribution to society.

For example I could very well submit that a society filled with unhappy marriages is not conjusive to progress, ergo, we should have fewer marriages, as liberal and progressive societies tend to have fewer marriages and increase in divorce rates. (source 2 a, b)

Given the number of societies with low marriage rates and high divorce rates such as the UK, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, France the USA, while all scoring very high on the democracy index (source 3) one must conclude that Marriage has little impact on the health of a society, or at least a free democratic one.

But it does, doesn't it? Especially if you view the act of family creation as an act that forwards the interests of a society. I know the following issue is quite complicated, and I argued it in a different vein on a recent debate, but birth rates have precipitously declined in correlation with your statistics on marriage rate decline. This presents a problem for any country that aims to effectively project power in the world stage in that ceteris paribus (i.e. same per capita income rates), a growing population will more effectively project power than a shrinking population.

http://www.forbes.com...


Thank you for the link sir,

Once again we come another point about the desire of a nation to project itself upon the world.

The amount of interesting statistics I found inmy research is quite amazing, I may well complie them at some point.

Anyway, to conclude I would submit that Marriage, or infedelity is not so valuable to our society that it should impact our ability to be promoted/elected, although I would never take away from the commitment many people around the world make to one another, this is by no way an intended attack upon marriage. I hope that isn't too contradictary sir.

I will maintain otherwise, and best regards to you too. =)


Perhapes given the sheer array of other factors that we have both raised, such as proffesionalism, political standards and power projection this would cover a diverse range of political issues which I wouldn't feel right hijaking this thread with (not to mention the keyboard devastation that would follow)

We have an accord it seems, thank you for your post, I shall continue to read objectivly into the subject and if more evidence is discovered of value I shall post it up for discussion.

Always a pleasure sir,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:52:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:50:01 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:30:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Perhapes given the sheer array of other factors that we have both raised, such as proffesionalism, political standards and power projection this would cover a diverse range of political issues which I wouldn't feel right hijaking this thread with (not to mention the keyboard devastation that would follow)

We have an accord it seems, thank you for your post, I shall continue to read objectivly into the subject and if more evidence is discovered of value I shall post it up for discussion.

lol, keyboard devastation. =)

I will respect your wishes about shelving this conversation, cheers.

Always a pleasure sir,
Ben
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:53:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:48:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:44:38 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:36:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

A government is looking after citizens who are incapable of self-defense.

The NAP only disallows initiation of force, not defense or retaliation. If Government were limited only to roles which promoted defense, and were not paid for by tax, I'd be okay with it.

How can the government fulfill its function without collecting taxes? Perhaps you can run a successful business without incurring any profits, too? Or eat a full meal without any food? Or quench your thirst without any H2O (food is primarily composed of water)?

Through voluntary contribution, like any other business. Although then it wouldn't really be a Government any more, which is my point.

Again, I will maintain that the charge that a government leader is insane is total bunk.

Really this just hinges on the fact that I think the NAP is moral and you don't. So of course you'd think it's bunk. Don't you think, though, that it would take a very unusual type of person to want to be in charge of all society? As well as actually succeed?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 6:55:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:53:17 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:48:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:44:38 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:36:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

A government is looking after citizens who are incapable of self-defense.

The NAP only disallows initiation of force, not defense or retaliation. If Government were limited only to roles which promoted defense, and were not paid for by tax, I'd be okay with it.

How can the government fulfill its function without collecting taxes? Perhaps you can run a successful business without incurring any profits, too? Or eat a full meal without any food? Or quench your thirst without any H2O (food is primarily composed of water)?

Through voluntary contribution, like any other business. Although then it wouldn't really be a Government any more, which is my point.

rofl, so you think that a business earns profits by "voluntarily" contributing their product, i.e. freely contributing their product? Maybe my body will "voluntarily" quench itself of thirst by me dying of it?

Again, I will maintain that the charge that a government leader is insane is total bunk.

Really this just hinges on the fact that I think the NAP is moral and you don't. So of course you'd think it's bunk. Don't you think, though, that it would take a very unusual type of person to want to be in charge of all society? As well as actually succeed?

No I do not. It would actually take a very ordinary person, especially as I am framing a leader as a macrocosm of the head of a household.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 7:04:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 6:55:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:53:17 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:48:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:44:38 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:36:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

A government is looking after citizens who are incapable of self-defense.

The NAP only disallows initiation of force, not defense or retaliation. If Government were limited only to roles which promoted defense, and were not paid for by tax, I'd be okay with it.

How can the government fulfill its function without collecting taxes? Perhaps you can run a successful business without incurring any profits, too? Or eat a full meal without any food? Or quench your thirst without any H2O (food is primarily composed of water)?

Through voluntary contribution, like any other business. Although then it wouldn't really be a Government any more, which is my point.

rofl, so you think that a business earns profits by "voluntarily" contributing their product, i.e. freely contributing their product? Maybe my body will "voluntarily" quench itself of thirst by me dying of it?

Voluntary contribution to the company. Someone pays the business, because they would like something in return. People pay the 'government' because they want protection, and in return they get protection. That is still voluntary.

Again, I will maintain that the charge that a government leader is insane is total bunk.

Really this just hinges on the fact that I think the NAP is moral and you don't. So of course you'd think it's bunk. Don't you think, though, that it would take a very unusual type of person to want to be in charge of all society? As well as actually succeed?

No I do not. It would actually take a very ordinary person, especially as I am framing a leader as a macrocosm of the head of a household.

Well I think it is some form of insanity to support initiation of force on any level, so to be leader of an organisation based entirely around it's use, in my opinion, would take a very insane person.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 7:06:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 7:04:19 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:55:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:53:17 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:48:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:44:38 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:36:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

A government is looking after citizens who are incapable of self-defense.

The NAP only disallows initiation of force, not defense or retaliation. If Government were limited only to roles which promoted defense, and were not paid for by tax, I'd be okay with it.

How can the government fulfill its function without collecting taxes? Perhaps you can run a successful business without incurring any profits, too? Or eat a full meal without any food? Or quench your thirst without any H2O (food is primarily composed of water)?

Through voluntary contribution, like any other business. Although then it wouldn't really be a Government any more, which is my point.

rofl, so you think that a business earns profits by "voluntarily" contributing their product, i.e. freely contributing their product? Maybe my body will "voluntarily" quench itself of thirst by me dying of it?

Voluntary contribution to the company. Someone pays the business, because they would like something in return. People pay the 'government' because they want protection, and in return they get protection. That is still voluntary.

So you have no problem with taxes then. You are contradicting yourself in the underlined.

Again, I will maintain that the charge that a government leader is insane is total bunk.

Really this just hinges on the fact that I think the NAP is moral and you don't. So of course you'd think it's bunk. Don't you think, though, that it would take a very unusual type of person to want to be in charge of all society? As well as actually succeed?

No I do not. It would actually take a very ordinary person, especially as I am framing a leader as a macrocosm of the head of a household.

Well I think it is some form of insanity to support initiation of force on any level, so to be leader of an organisation based entirely around it's use, in my opinion, would take a very insane person.

Regardless of the necessity of force projection?

I mean, you can say that family creation is absolutely insane if all of us were immortal.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 7:13:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 7:04:19 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:55:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:53:17 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:48:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:44:38 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/13/2013 6:36:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

A government is looking after citizens who are incapable of self-defense.

The NAP only disallows initiation of force, not defense or retaliation. If Government were limited only to roles which promoted defense, and were not paid for by tax, I'd be okay with it.

How can the government fulfill its function without collecting taxes? Perhaps you can run a successful business without incurring any profits, too? Or eat a full meal without any food? Or quench your thirst without any H2O (food is primarily composed of water)?

Through voluntary contribution, like any other business. Although then it wouldn't really be a Government any more, which is my point.

rofl, so you think that a business earns profits by "voluntarily" contributing their product, i.e. freely contributing their product? Maybe my body will "voluntarily" quench itself of thirst by me dying of it?

Voluntary contribution to the company. Someone pays the business, because they would like something in return. People pay the 'government' because they want protection, and in return they get protection. That is still voluntary.

Again, I will maintain that the charge that a government leader is insane is total bunk.

Really this just hinges on the fact that I think the NAP is moral and you don't. So of course you'd think it's bunk. Don't you think, though, that it would take a very unusual type of person to want to be in charge of all society? As well as actually succeed?

No I do not. It would actually take a very ordinary person, especially as I am framing a leader as a macrocosm of the head of a household.

Well I think it is some form of insanity to support initiation of force on any level, so to be leader of an organisation based entirely around it's use, in my opinion, would take a very insane person.

Hello Sdavio,

Sir, please find a defnition of insane below.

Adjective
In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.
(of an action or quality) Characterized or caused by madness.

Are you claiming that all these people are/were insane? This is not an exhaustive list my any stretch of the imagination

Abraham Lincoln
Winston Churchill
Bill Clinton
Margret Thatcher
Barak Obama
William Pitt the Younger
Anuerin Bevan
Earnst Bevin
Ho Chi Minh
Nelson Mandela
Otto VonBismark
Mikhail Gorbachev
Ashoka the Great
John F. Kennedy
Perocles
Sun Tzu
Cleopatra
Karl Marx
Thomas Jefferson
Ronald Reagan
William the Conqueror

The list goes on....

Best Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."