Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - The biggest humanitarian disaster of all [dwmf]

(+) Yeah! (+)

SmartMuffin posted...

You need to prove that taxes are bad, not just that they are common. And if something is super common, it's harder to prove that it's bad.

...why does anyone need to prove to you that sexual assault is bad?

did you completely stop believing in libertarianism and everything it stands for overnight or something? "well, if violating the NAP is super common it's probably good and difficult to prove that it's bad." what the hell?
---

Atheist and gay first for sure

sorry Native American Muslims
---

foolm0r0n posted...

How about atheist president? Before or after muslim president?

According to the left we've already had the former.

And according to the right we've already had the latter.

(and it's the same dude)
---

I don't think I've ever heard someone on the left say Obama is an atheist?
---

Kenri posted...

I don't think I've ever heard someone on the left say Obama is an atheist?

people on this board used to argue that shit all the time
---

I've definitely heard that. That he just faked the Christianity thing (which is likely true but also applies to prob 90% of presidents).
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Kenri posted...

I don't think I've ever heard someone on the left say Obama is an atheist?

people on this board used to argue that shit all the time

I don't remember that at ALL. I remember the wrong always either called him a Muslim, or bitched about his connections to Reverend Wright. But nothing about atheism.
---

The conversation usually went something like this:

"Obviously only a fucking idiot could actually believe in Christianity!"

"So you think Obama is a fucking idiot?"

"No, he's clearly only pretending to be Christian because he knows this stupid fucking country refuses to vote for an atheist!"
---

of the presidents in my lifetime none have been as obviously fake christian as trump tbqh. the whole picking pence as VP thing just screams "see guys? i AM super extremely christian!"
---

SmartMuffin posted...

The conversation usually went something like this:

"Obviously only a fucking idiot could actually believe in Christianity!"

"So you think Obama is a fucking idiot?"

"No, he's clearly only pretending to be Christian because he knows this stupid fucking country refuses to vote for an atheist!"

honestly this does sound exactly like the kind of dumb fucking conversation that could have happened on this board so even though i don't remember it i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here
---

Trump is probably the most truly American Christian in a long time, which is a special kind of Christianity that you blindly follow the motions of just so you don't have to think about hard questions like what traditions and holidays to plan your family around, morals and such. Totally shallow and utilitarian, no spiritualism or anything at all.
---

Trump is an interesting case. Clearly fake christian, yeah. But I'm not sure he's an "atheist" either. What's the term for someone who can't believe in God because that would require acknowledging a being as superior to yourself?

Objectivist maybe!
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I've definitely heard that. That he just faked the Christianity thing (which is likely true but also applies to prob 90% of presidents).

I mean, "Obama is a fake Christian" is conspiracy theory shit that is only slightly more credible than, "he's a secret Muslim."
---

https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-bloggers-lawsuits-underside-of-the-mattress-wars

Millionaires shooting at each other with million-dolllar law-rifles... such a waste
---

I used to wonder if Obama pretended to be Christian for votes but I'm not sure it fits the profile of a guy who stubbornly ran for senate as "Barack Hussein Obama" only a few years after 9/11

Cruise update:

Haven't met any decent single chicks.

No real face time with Tom and Bob yet.

I have spent a bit of time in small groups with Michael Boldin (founder of the 10th amendment center) who is a super cool dude, and weirdly enough, comes from the left (despite Tom and Bob being on the right side of the libertarian schism).

Spoke briefly to Scott Horton, who is much younger and rantier than I expected.

Dave Smith is here, but I haven't talked to him. He's performing tomorrow.

Of all the people I've talked to, I've probably made friends most with yet another Dutch dude, who just rants about how non-libertarian most Dutch people are.

Got horribly sunburned today.
---

Lasa why didn't you say you were going on this cruise also?
---

being trapped on a boat with a gazillion libertarians sounds like a nightmare.

not sure what that dutch dude is going on about - you can find plenty of libertarians here if you look for them and we've had a libertarian party since 1993. sure, practically nobody votes for them, but that doesn't make them much different than the american libertarian party.

also, the dude who runs our LP is an actual libertarian who doesn't spout "socially liberal, economically conservative" bullshit. if we're just comparing the parties i'd say we're MORE libertarian!

edit: oh, i misread the line and didn't see that he said "most." but still, i don't think there's that much of a difference in the popularity of libertarianism.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

also, the dude who runs our LP is an actual libertarian who doesn't spout "socially liberal, economically conservative" bullshit. if we're just comparing the parties i'd say we're MORE libertarian!

Wait, so who are you saying he is different from, and what are the actual differences?
---

gary johnson. during the campaign of the last election he frequently said he's "socially liberal, economically conservative," which made him infamous among the hardcore libertarians.
---

No that's a super common marketing phrase used by libertarians for decades. It's just groan worthy, since it's repeated so often without any depth or thought. It's like "but who would build the roads??"
---

well that's not the only thing - GJ also said "i want a fair tax" and "i agree with bernie on 75% of the issues." he's obviously not as hardcore as RP.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

No that's a super common marketing phrase used by libertarians for decades. It's just groan worthy, since it's repeated so often without any depth or thought. It's like "but who would build the roads??"

I mean... is it wrong?

(Of course I'm talking about "classical" libertarians, not all the idiots that have coopted the label in the last several years)
---

It's pure semantics/marketing so it entirely depends on what definitions you use, which is really damn annoying and does nothing to actually sell libertarianism
---

yeah, what foolmo said. it's wrong if you use the actual "socially liberal" definition, because then you'd be in favor of mandatory positive discrimination and stuff like that, which is obviously not libertarian. but if you use the stupid "caring about social issues = liberal" definition it's not wrong.
---

Read a good take on the "we should debate and converse with nazis" sentiment: What should you do if you lose the debate?

Debates have winners and losers right? What if the nazis win? Will you just sit down and let them kill everyone? Just because you're bad at debating?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Read a good take on the "we should debate and converse with nazis" sentiment: What should you do if you lose the debate?

Debates have winners and losers right? What if the nazis win? Will you just sit down and let them kill everyone? Just because you're bad at debating?

Hah, we had some pretty heated arguments here last night, complete with one lady accusing me of being a nazi. And she eventually got to this - "Well what if eventually they DO take over"

Which is sort of bizarre. I mean, I guess it is technically possible. Except that republicans/democrats outnumber libertarians 10 to 1, and libertarians outnumber nazis probably 10 to 1 as well. So it would be a pretty spectacular level of failure needed for nazis to even surpass libertarianism, much less do even better than we are to the extent that they could actually threaten the establishment.
---

yeah, from a libertarian perspective it's like this: if nazis win a debate because you suck at arguing then they win a debate. and no, if they try to "kill everyone" you don't just sit down - attacking nazis because they're tyring to kill you is self-defense. seems pretty simple to me.

not sure what you want to do with nazis other than debate and converse with them. attack them? doesn't that violate the NAP?
---

So do you just don't understand what a hypothetical is or what? (nevermind that this hypothetical literally happened in reality a few decades ago)

If you have no answer to the question then your worldview is incomplete. If you refuse to even try to come up with an answer, then your worldview is completely broken and useless.

SmartMuffin posted...

Except that republicans/democrats outnumber libertarians 10 to 1, and libertarians outnumber nazis probably 10 to 1 as well

If this is your answer, it's pretty damn weak.

Let's say there's a nazi ready to kill a jew in front of them. You approach and engage in reasonable and well-informed debate. The nazi defeats you and gains the right to kill the jew.

Are you really just going to stand back and tell yourself "well guys like this are only 1% of the population so it's not a big deal"?
---

not sure what you want to do with nazis other than debate and converse with them. attack them? doesn't that violate the NAP?

write a bunch of virtue-signaling articles attacking them and hoping the statists will be honest and realize you aren't the same as them (they won't)

although the woman arguing with me literally did start saying "being a nazi is the same as murder" so I guess she would attack them, yeah
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

doesn't that violate the NAP?

Not if they're trying to kill people
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Let's say there's a nazi ready to kill a jew in front of them. You approach and engage in reasonable and well-informed debate. The nazi defeats you and gains the right to kill the jew.

Are you really just going to stand back and tell yourself "well guys like this are only 1% of the population so it's not a big deal"?

Why does the result of the debate have the potential outcome of "the right to kill a jew?"

Ultimately it's just a bad hypothetical if thats the constraints you're putting on it. If you lose the debate and they think it's now ok to kill the Jew, and proceed to attempt to, you pull out your hypothetical gun and hypothetically kill them.
---

What are the rules of this debate such that someone can lose so objectively that their sheer ineptitude forfeits someone else's right to live? Is it a point system, popularity contest?
---

HotDogButts posted...

Why does the result of the debate have the potential outcome of "the right to kill a jew?"

Because that is the nature of debate. You have winners and losers. If the choices are to win or to shoot the guy, that's not a debate. That's interrogation/torture with extra steps.

Do you see the issue? When you say "we should avoid violence and just engage in reasonable debate", you are explicitly putting on the table the option for the opponent in the debate to win. That's why people ridicule this notion. It requires "nazis win" as a possibility.

If you replace "nazis win" with "shoot nazi" as you suggest, then you are literally 0% different from the pro-violence people you are condemning, just slightly more self-righteous.
---

The nature of debate does not include a provision saying that someone is objectively correct if they feel they are
---

those are ridiculous parameters that only you are setting up. The winner of a debate doesn't gain the right to do whatever they were just advocating for.

When people say we should have an open debate with people we disagree with, they're saying instead of just dismissing/attacking (not even necessarily physically) those people in a big circle jerk, you should engage them intellectually in order to change their minds.

The actual result of losing the debate is you didn't change any minds, not that it's now OK to kill jews. The value of engagement is the potential to change/influence behavior.

Whether or not i accept the debate my conclusion about what to do it a Nazi is actively trying to kill jews is the same --- physical force to defend the rights of others to not be physically assaulted.
---

Panthera posted...

The nature of debate does not include a provision saying that someone is objectively correct if they feel they are

There is no such thing as objectively correct, but in the context of the debate, they won. You and/or society admits they are correct in that context.

So given that, here's where you two are heading:
HotDogButts posted...

The actual result of losing the debate is you didn't change any minds, not that it's now OK to kill jews. The value of engagement is the potential to change/influence behavior.

Again, this is not a debate because it's completely one-sided. There is a 0% chance you will be convinced that the nazi is correct, right? So then you are basically describing a lecture or something, where you are expecting the nazi to have some non-0% chance of listening to what you are saying, for some.... reason...?

The bottom line is, if you have a 0% chance of accepting their beliefs, how can you possibly assume they have a non-0% chance (esp given theirs is an ideology based in intellectual exclusion and irrational hate)?

So the utopian "change minds" goal is not realistic/valid. It does ultimately come down to the 2 options: you win, or nazi wins (i.e. nazi gets shot).
---

the chance of them changing my mind isn't 0%, so no.

Do i fervently believe they won't change it? Sure. But the possibility exists.
---

really this entire premise is just dumb. Searching for something that's not there. Your entire premise rests on the notion that no Nazi has ever abandoned his beliefs or that a non-nazi has ever become one, which is clearly not true.
---

You're glossing over the small detail of what standard exists that allows someone to "win" a debate so thoroughly that it invalidates every objection anyone in the world could ever have to their beliefs and means they are automatically justified in acting as they see fit. Like what is the alternative in your mind if the non-Nazi wins this debate? The Nazi is sent to Professor Xavier to be brainwashed to prevent them from ever even considering Nazism again?
---

Panthera posted...

You're glossing over the small detail of what standard exists that allows someone to "win" a debate so thoroughly that it invalidates every objection anyone in the world could ever have to their beliefs and means they are automatically justified in acting as they see fit. Like what is the alternative in your mind if the non-Nazi wins this debate? The Nazi is sent to Professor Xavier to be brainwashed to prevent them from ever even considering Nazism again?

I mean, this is kind of Foolmo's point >_>
---

His point is that debate in his mind is literal divine judgment, yes. Most people can understand the idea that "debating" an issue doesn't inherently require that anyone be convinced, or that any given position is automatically worth carrying out simply because one singular person was more charismatic than one other.
---

His point is more the opposite really. People say we need to debate the Nazis instead of taking action against them. If nobody is convinced and there's really no chance of anyone being convinced, then the debate is pretty meaningless isn't it?

EDIT: I mean, I could very well be reading Foolmo wrong, but that's how I read it.
---

I'm not even on Team Let's Talk to Nazis exactly I just don't like the hypothetical

Any objection based on the idea that you're not going to be convinced by the Nazi is flawed because the alternative (punch the Nazi) is also based on that principle.

The problem I have with the hypothetical is that it's not built on anything real. Who is deciding who "wins" this debate? Real people can understand that a conversation *can* but doesn't *have to* convince someone. foolmo isn't criticizing people who talk about "debating" Nazis so much as he's criticizing an idea about how public debate works that no one else even seems to believe in.
---

i do think it's annoying when people go "we shouldn't punch nazis! instead we should debate them with facts and logic and reason!" when you just know they've never actually attempted to debate a nazi in their lives. it's like all the people recently going "IT'S SO EASY TO JOKE ABOUT BEING RAPED" as a rection to the #metoo stuff, even though they're deadly afraid to actually publicly joke about it themselves. saying "we shouldn't punch nazis" is fine, just leave the "we should debate them" bullshit out of it.
---

Don't think I posted about Dave Smith's stand up performance, which was pretty good. He just did a Q&A that was pretty hilarious as well.

Nice little bit about "punching down." He's basically like "These other comedians say there's no humor in 'punching down' but I'm pretty sure that's bullshit. Have you SEEN some of the people who are down? Some of them are pretty fucking hilarious."
---

Is that a pretty good joke?
---

HotDogButts posted...

the chance of them changing my mind isn't 0%, so no.

That's pretty messed up tbh
---

As messed up as not believing in the merits of discourse and the exchange of ideas? Strong disagree.

The thing is you don't even actually believe that... or if you do the only reasonable explanation for your engagement in these discussions is for the sole benefit of your ego, which I think goes without saying is pretty messed up.
---

Man these genocider murderers are so darn charming!
---