The two parties dilemma; Strange?

That's what it means to systemically determine something.



Conspiracy theories that I don't buy aside, I find that self contradictory. You support stopping oppression from someone else because there's a potential that it might fall to you. Yet, you don't support the exact same thing if it's happenning much further away. That potential doesn't disappear just because it's happenning further away. So why is it that you're ok with allowing oppression to happen in other countries, just not in ours, even if it's not an oppression to you? That makes no sense.



Ok, yes, I do disagree with you, and think that your position is laughable. There OUGHT to be laws against things that are demonstrably divisive, even if they do't negatively affect me.

Let me ask you something, should there be a law, preventing institutionalized segregation from being put into law?



Yet, as soon as anyone starts to decide they're not ok with the confines their working in, the only possible way to conserve the status quo is to either force them to accept it, or exile them outright. I don't like this kind of, "We all have to agree, or it won't work" idealism. People are different from each other, not everyone's the same. This is an unavoidable fact of life. If your political philosophy cannot account for it, but instead encourages overriding it, then it fails.



Yup, because they said, "Well I'm not gonna do it. And it needs done."



Both. People, in general, DON'T want to help people, because it's too much of a pain in the ass. It's much easier to just pay a little bit of money from a paycheck, or insert some money into a donation jar for a charity. And you're the same, just to a lesser extent. I'm sure you've donated to charities before, but you don't go out and actually do research on how to cure cancer, I'm sure that you don't actually adopt children from Africa and bring them over here.

Does this make you callous? Uncaring? To a certain extent it does. But to another extent it just means you don't care ENOUGH to go the extra mile. This is the same for just about everyone. No matter how charitable you are, you could always do more. But people have limits. IT can be fiscal limits, or just the fact that you want to live SOMEWHAT for yourself.

McClatchy

According to the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian we were active allies with Libya until the "revolution".


So, let me ask you this, why were we so buddy-buddy with such an oppressive regime by having Libya interrogate capture terrorists. We even convinced them to give up their nuclear program. Yet, a few years later, we're bombing the bejeesus out of our former ally? Same shit happened in Iran and Iraq. We're allies with a regime until it gets annoyed with us shafting them, then we invade and install a new regime. For someone who "looks at each issue individually" you seem to just swallow the load of whatever the talking heads tell you.




So you believe that whenever something happens in another country that we don't like, we should invade, topple the government and install a new one that better suits our needs? That is utter NeoCon warmongering bullshit. We have no right to invade a sovereign nation. China, North Korea, Burma, Laos and Vietnam are oppressing their people. Should we invade them? Should we invade every Islamic country around the world because women are oppressed in those societies?



Already answered that question. You clearly didn't read the entire segment. Federal and State governments should not be involved in segregation or anything remotely similar. However, private property is not subject to the same restrictions. I should not be forced at gunpoint to hire someone who I feel is unqualified for the job because of the color of their skin, sexual orientation, religious creed or whatever. I'm native American, does that give me the right to use the force of the Federal and State governments to make you hire me because I'm a different color? What if, it's a Christian Book store, do I as an Atheist have the right to force them to hire me?

You dodged my questions and I ask you to answer them now.

Do you believe you have the right to ask someone to leave your house if you do not want them there? What if he was black? White? Asian? Hispanic? What if it was a woman? What if she was a Lesbian? What if it was a mentally or physically disabled person? What if they were Christian? Atheist? Muslim? Buddhist? Jain? Scientologist? What if it was any combination of the above, do you still have the right to remove these people from your property? Why or why not?

Now, what if it was a commercial property like a warehouse or an office. Is there any combination of the above that would you should not be allowed to ask these people to leave?

I'll save you the time and hassle. No, there is no logical reason for any individual or combination of these characteristics that should be you or Law Enforcement to make the person vacate your property.

So how do these scenarios differ from the hiring practice?




Pissing on your own feet here. No system can work unless "everybody agrees". If people suddenly said "Eh, fuck taxes, we're not paying" then the Social Democratic system falls apart. If people decided 'We're not going to pay for goods and services anymore. We'll just take what we want" Then a capitalist system would fall apart. Every system ever created requires that everybody be in general agreement. Democracy, Communism, Republicanism, Libertarianism, Monarchy, Socialism, Anarchy, etc, etc, etc, etc all require people to generally agree on how things should work. If they don't, it falls apart.



Flawed argument is deeply flawed and laughable. Seriously, I laughed pretty hard for about 10 minutes.

First, I don't do cancer research because I lack any formal education in that area. I also lack the finances to even start a cancer research laboratory. I do not adopt African children because I do not have the money nor the means to properly raise a child. If I had the money, I would adopt children from other countries and give them a better life here.

Edit: The difference between us Lundi, you're content with "giving". I'm more content with "doing".

Which one of us is actually making the world a better place?

Truth to be told in order to get noticed in the political zone you need alot of funding...but since im going to assume many Americans are lazy (considering the % that dont even vote), doubt anyones going to take the effort to compete against the Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, I should be convinced that there's an ultimate shadowy government conspiracy that we somehow topple foreign governments through CIA espionage via non scholarly, unsourced articles on the internet.

Yup, sounds totally reasonable. *rolleyes*

Listen, you're going to need to do a lot better than that if you want to convince me of something so blatantly absurd as what you're suggesting. I'm a skeptic by nature.



I agree! That's why I didn't say that! :D Seriously FPOD, your inability to understand what I'm saying is on the level of insanity.

I never said that we should go topple governments we don't like, I simply pointed out an inconsistency in your logic. You believe it's ok to stop someone from oppressing someone if the person being oppressed is in America, because, and these are your words "The potential is there that it might come to you as well" Yet, you don't support the exact same thing happenning in a seperate country, because...it's further away. Connect the dots here. Make that make sense, because right now, that's retarded.



Of course we do. And they have the right to be pissed off. And other countries have the right to say we're wrong. I thought you libertarians were pro everyone having the right to do what they want. :)



I don't support war, but should we remain indifferent? Hell no. Should we do something about the injustice happenning in the world? Absolutely. If war were proven to be the only answer that'll work, then fuck it, war it is.



So no, they should allow segregation to occur, if segregation is occurring. Have fun convincing people that segregation isn't something to try to legally stop.



I'm against hate crime laws and forcing people to hire minorities purely because they're minorities, so you're not attacking my position in any way.

Though, I don't support them, not because establishing laws to keep racism from happenning is a bad thing, but because the application of these laws only serve to be further divisive. None of this goes against the idea that there ought to be laws keeping people from segregating in general though.



I didn't know you asked any, but whatever.



Yup.



In this order. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.



Because everyone has the right to do whatever they want. However, I'm damned sure going to do whatever I possibly can to stop the bad things(like keeping people from being racist dickheads) from happenning, up to and INCLUDING establishing a law to better keep it from happenning. And why? See if you can follow this: It's my right. :D



I know you answered for me..but I don't care.

Yes :D. Commercial property is the property of all people, including the people that don't want particular people to be there, or want to keep particular people from doing bad things, or hell, even good things.

The fact of the matter is, you can deny the prospect that it can in any way be reasonable to to ask people to leave commercial property because of religious disposition or color, but that is people's rights.

It's a right that I am set on infringing. Why? Because it's a right that I think ought not be. Why? Because there SHOULD be limits to things we have the right to do. There are REASONS to limit things we have the right to do.



See above.



Fantastic. Good job. You've proven my point exactly. You've shown exactly why I don' call myself ANY of those things, and why I think nobody ought to. Good job FPOD, proving my point for me without me asking you to.



Great, then you should be able to debunk it with haste.



*buzzer* Miss the point more why don't you? You're sitting here arguing on the internet instead of going out and trying to help people actively...why? And don't try and turn this around and say, "Well so are you!" because I KNOW I am, that's the point.



So? Doesn't mean you can't join one, or study to join one. Or hell, go become a janitor at one and try to help them that way.

Yes, I should be convinced that there's an ultimate shadowy government conspiracy that we somehow topple foreign governments through CIA espionage via non scholarly, unsourced articles on the internet.

Yup, sounds totally reasonable. *rolleyes*

Listen, you're going to need to do a lot better than that if you want to convince me of something so blatantly absurd as what you're suggesting. I'm a skeptic by nature.



I agree! That's why I didn't say that! :D Seriously FPOD, your inability to understand what I'm saying is on the level of insanity.

I never said that we should go topple governments we don't like, I simply pointed out an inconsistency in your logic. You believe it's ok to stop someone from oppressing someone if the person being oppressed is in America, because, and these are your words "The potential is there that it might come to you as well" Yet, you don't support the exact same thing happenning in a seperate country, because...it's further away. Connect the dots here. Make that make sense, because right now, that's retarded.



Of course we do. And they have the right to be pissed off. And other countries have the right to say we're wrong. I thought you libertarians were pro everyone having the right to do what they want. :)



I don't support war, but should we remain indifferent? Hell no. Should we do something about the injustice happenning in the world? Absolutely. If war were proven to be the only answer that'll work, then fuck it, war it is.



So no, they should allow segregation to occur, if segregation is occurring. Have fun convincing people that segregation isn't something to try to legally stop.



I'm against hate crime laws and forcing people to hire minorities purely because they're minorities, so you're not attacking my position in any way.

Though, I don't support them, not because establishing laws to keep racism from happenning is a bad thing, but because the application of these laws only serve to be further divisive. None of this goes against the idea that there ought to be laws keeping people from segregating in general though.



I didn't know you asked any, but whatever.



Yup.



In this order. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.



Because everyone has the right to do whatever they want. However, I'm damned sure going to do whatever I possibly can to stop the bad things(like keeping people from being racist dickheads) from happenning, up to and INCLUDING establishing a law to better keep it from happenning. And why? See if you can follow this: It's my right. :D



I know you answered for me..but I don't care.

Yes :D. Commercial property is the property of all people, including the people that don't want particular people to be there, or want to keep particular people from doing bad things, or hell, even good things.

The fact of the matter is, you can deny the prospect that it can in any way be reasonable to to ask people to leave commercial property because of religious disposition or color, but that is people's rights.

It's a right that I am set on infringing. Why? Because it's a right that I think ought not be. Why? Because there SHOULD be limits to things we have the right to do. There are REASONS to limit things we have the right to do.



See above.



Fantastic. Good job. You've proven my point exactly. You've shown exactly why I don' call myself ANY of those things, and why I think nobody ought to. Good job FPOD, proving my point for me without me asking you to.



Great, then you should be able to debunk it with haste.



*buzzer* Miss the point more why don't you? You're sitting here arguing on the internet instead of going out and trying to help people actively...why? And don't try and turn this around and say, "Well so are you!" because I KNOW I am, that's the point.



So? Doesn't mean you can't join one, or study to join one. Or hell, go become a janitor at one and try to help them that way.




...Jesus this is a mess

I might not be as intelligent, but isn't it possible for both of you guys to simply summarize
each your opinions in 1 sentence?

Once you have two concrete opposing ideas, is when questions are truly answered.
Because arguing who is right or wrong isn't going to do shit.

Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Cuba 1956, Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960, Iraq 1963, Brazil 1964, Republic of Ghana 1966, Afghanistan 1973-1974, Iraq 1973-1975.

Want to know what all of these have in common? The CIA is officially on record as participating in the backing of coups against these democratically elected governments.



Let me spell it out for you in short snippets to aid in your comprehension.

I oppose oppression in all countries.

The United States does not have the right to invade or meddle in the domestic affairs of another sovereign nation.

It is hypocritical for the United State to interfere with the domestic affairs of another country through military action, when we would oppose any other nation doing the same to us.

Diplomacy is preferential to war.



Utter NeoCon jingoistic bullshit.



Notsureiftrollingorjuststupid.jpg




You claim we have the right to invade and yet, you "don't support war". Now, you're the one sounding retarded. Diplomacy is a much better option than war to resolve problems.



There is a difference between Segregate and Discriminate.

I don't need to convince people that institutionalized segregation is something that should be legally stopped. I'm not arguing for institutionalized segregation but, instead arguing that a person should not be required to hire someone because of their sex, creed, sexual orientation or skin color.

I believe that if we have the right to remove someone from our home for whatever reason we see fit then logically the same applies to other forms of property such as a business.

Hypothetically, you own a business. Should you be required to hire someone because they are gay? What if the person is under qualified when compared to a straight applicant? Should you still be required to hire them? What if the person was black? Should you be required to hire him if he's under qualified for the position? What if he's a Scientologist? Should you be required to hire them because of their religious beliefs? What if he's an ultra conservative Muslim who believes that sinners/infidels should be hunted down and killed, should you be required to hire him because he's Muslim?




So you have the right to use force to impose your will on others? That's egotistical. People will be racist dickheads regardless if it's illegal or not. So really the law makes no difference. A racist who doesn't want to hire blacks will skirt around the law to the best of his ability.



How is commercial property the property of everyone? If you own a business, I can just walk in and take money from the register or merchandise off the shelf? I mean, the business belongs to me as well right?



Now, you're just a hypocrite. You advocated earlier that you had the right to force your will on other people and make them do something they may not want to do under threat of fines or incarceration and now, you turn around and say that others can do the same.

So it's perfectly fine for you to impose your will on others but, other people can't because you don't like it. Blatant hypocrisy.

Since you believe there are reasons to limit people's rights. Can I limit your right to free speech because I think you're an idiot who is incapable of managing the responsibly?



Trying to enlighten stupid people like yourself is a hobby of mine. If I manage to get you to realize your idiocy and blatant hypocrisy, then the world will become a better place. I fear that you're just far too stupid to save.



By the same logic you've been spouting, if I choose to study and join a cancer research lab, I apparently hate people suffering from A.I.D.S., Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome, Cerebral palsy or any number of other diseases.



Yep, because of my cheap ass laptop that I got on sale a year ago and a basic internet package. I'm so well off that I can afford to bring another human being into this household. You have no idea what my personal finances are like. If I can't afford to cloth or feed a child, then I can't. Before you pull the bullshit of "Well that's what food stamps are for". I won't rob Peter to pay for Paul. On top of that, I'll be entering the Marine Corps this year. So I won't be around to properly raise the child.



Really? I have money? Let me know where you found it.



In this section you've made about half a dozen assumptions about my character. You know nothing about me besides what I share on Fakku and simply make these assumptions to justify your cynical view.



Why would I apologize to the hypocrite who makes inaccurate assumptions about my character? Not only that but, feels so egotistical that he can impose his will on others through law and yet, will oppose other people being allowed to do the same because he simply doesn't like it.

You can wait for that apology but, I will never apologize because I have nothing to apologize for.

I'll entertain this discussion a little longer simply because I enjoy feeding trolls. I can't feed you too much otherwise I risk overfeeding and then you'll get fat.

And not a single scholarly link for any of them. Not only that, but you an't specify to what degree. By backing do you meant they led the assault? Or that they sold weapons? Because selling weapons is something we do all the time that I don't find all that controversial.



Yeah, I agree to that last bit. Unless diplomacy won't work. Like, say, with Hitler. And before you say, "Lol Godwin's Law" I AM right. Diplomacy was attempted with Hitler, and what happened? He took over countries and territory more and more until people said, "Right, enough of that, time to fight."

The United States, however, DOES have the right to interfere with domestic policies of other countries, either diplomatically or violently. I personally prefer diplomaticaly, though there ARE going to be instances when that's not enough. Are you seriously saying, our policy ought to be "Yeah, alll those mass graves of your citizens you've been putting in gass chambers? Could you...like..NOT do that? No? You're going to keep doing it? Well, I guess I tried."



Wah. If it's bullshit, show me why I'm wrong instead of just declaring it outright.



So...you're not for freedom? Good lord, can you at least TRY to remain consistent?



Unless diplomacy is proving to be completely ineffective. Seriously FPOD, do you honestly think that "having the right to do X" is an equivalent statement to "We ought to do X."? Because if so, I think you're on drugs.



Which I've already conceded, yet you continue to miss the point. IF there are people out there that ARe saying, "You don't get to be hired to this place because you are black" Then that is a problem that needs to be stopped.



You seem to think the only people who hire workers are the owners of businesses. Let me let you in a little secret: The owners of businesses regularly don't have the time to do the hiring, so they have someone else do it for them. I know. My dad's a business owner, and he doesn't hire anyone, nor get involved with what workers do.

Still, it's a moot point, because I disagree regardless. There's a difference between, "I don't want a black person in my house" and "A black person will never set foot in my company." The difference is that your company is only sccessful based on its consumer base. That consumer base may include black people, so black people are contributing the infrastructure of your company, meaning, they get to set foot in there, whether you like it or not.



I've already long conceded that I'm against affirmative action. I'm unsure why you keep asking me this question when I said as much already...unless...wait...are you just SKIMMING my posts to pick out little things to respond to? Are you not paying any attention to my posts? Shame.



No, because that's EVERYONE'S right. Did I say it's exclusively my right because of reason X or it's exclusively my right because of characteristic Y? No, I just said it's my right, which doesn't exclude anyone else.



And our responsibility ought to be making it as hard as fucking possible for him or her to do it without getting sued like a motherfucker. Why? Because if they can't develop with society's morals, then they DESERVE bad shit to happen to them.



See above as to how commercial property is the property of everyone.

Concerning your question of if you can come in and start taking things, no, though not because you don't in part own the property...it's because the owner of the business owns more of his property than you do, because he/she has sunk far more money into it, and has legal documentation to prove it. Therefore, whe nthey buy goods or merchandise, or tools or what have you, they have the right to have discretion as to how the tools can be used, or how much goods and merchandise should cost to the general public. There's a social contract in play where we, as the general public, agree to pay for goods and merchandise from a business in exchange for that business being able to provide us with those things, which includes us not taking directly from its profits.



Pot, meet kettle.



So..I'm a hypocrite because I'm extending the right I give myself to everyone else...what?



Of course they have the right to do it. And I have the right to fight it should I find it unjust. I'm wondering how you don't understand this.



Give it a shot. I'm willing to make compromises for, say, the safety of others. Say I'm a shitty guy that spreads misinformation on the internet and causes people to go out and do bad things...there's some ground there to maybe try and get me to stop spreading that misinformation.



See? You prove my point again. :D You would prefer to do something that personally makes you feel better, and that makes you personally feel like you've done something, than to do something that actually helps someone else. The time that you've been spending arguing with me could have been spent volunteering at a soup kitchen, or spending time going out and cleaning the highways, or whatever. There's always more you could do, yet you don't, because at a certain point you reach the point where you say, just like EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD, "Time for some time and energy spent on myself."



Nope, never said that you 'hate' anyone, didn't even imply it. If you don't volunteer in a laboratory, or go out and try to study to learn how to cure a disease, that doesn't mean that you hate people suffering from that disease, it just means you don't care about the subject as much as other people. And, news flash FPOD: THAT'S PERFECTLY ALRIGHT. Get it through your head.



Should have used the Marine Corps line in the beginning, though I suppose it kind of undermines the whole idea of being anti-war. you should join the Peace Corps, not the Marines.

You have money, you don't have '0' dollars, otherwise there's no way you'd be able to pay for all the things that you do, including the internet. This isn't an assumption about you made based off nothing, it's the logical conclusion. The fact is, you care about providing for yourself first, before the Africans. That's the fact, proving my point all the more.



So you're lying when you say you pay for a basic internet package?



No, I took what you said and took it to it's logical conclusion. You currently have money, as evidenced by the fact that you're paying for internet, and a place to stay. You could voluntarily go homeless, sell all your shit, and give all the proceeds to african families if you wanted to...but...well..you don't. I know this because you're still here, on Fakku.

These are evidence based logical conclusions, not gross assumptions that "I know nothing about".



Already explained why you have a misconception of my position, and that I extend all the rights that I have to everyone else. Try to actually understand someone's position before frothing at the mouth.



Aside from, you know, making assumptions about my person that you know nothing about, aside from what I share on Fakku, and all the other things YOU said when you got pissed off at thinking I was doing the same thing.

Now who's the hypocrite? ;)



Ah, the old standby, "This guy infuriates me with his contradictory position, this makes him a troll."

Are you so set in stone that your position is the only right one that you're not even amicable to the position that someone who's...say...anti libertarian might have some actual points?

Seriously, puling the troll card is the last line of defense when someone has no real argument to offer. If I were to call you a troll right about now, would I be justified just because your contradictory stance and inability to comprehend what my argument is annoys me?

Let me make the Libertarian Position on War clear, clear enough so that even you can understand it:

We DO NOT have the right to overthrow governments or regimes, the reason being is that would we rather have the same thing done to us? Furthermore, in the position of Self-Determinism what rights do we have in the affairs of other countries?

So say I were to go into your home, and say that you cannot believe X or Y. I do this, because I believe in Z and O, positions opposite to yours and in my hubris I proclaim these positions are the only positions that can be held.

I do not have this right to infringe on your personal beliefs, nor enforce mine on yours personally. Just as I don't have this social right, neither does our Nation State. Can you comprehend this? Is it simple enough for you to understand?

That means dictators as well! What might seem as dictatorship to us, might be seen as governance by another. Especially when consent was given in the way of an election. France may have helped us in the way of her navy, but she didn't help until we Americans proved we could fight the battle and even then she applied the principles of Self-Determination.

You believe you can use the sword to quell unlawful behavior. The Founding Fathers didn't, and I'll explain it again and again until you can comprehend it: You can ban racism, or you can ban these other activities. You've merely black marketed them and corruption and gangs spring forth. In fact, the modern War on Drugs is a testimony to your fallacy and your ignorance.

To make the point once again, there was at once a ban on whiskey/alchol(1854 if I remember correctly) this was so outrageous in America that they started vandalizing stores and venues until the ban was lifted.

And once again: Banning racism, or murder, etc might seem like a good idea but from these good ideas tyranny spreads. Up until the point where we live in your communistic regime, until we live in Modern day 'America'.

So we'll solve the injustice of the world through more injustice? Through our bombs, through our death squads and our invasions there shall come "peace"! Your a mixture of an atypically ignorant Liberal and a war mongering Neo-Con.

And your argument that because the idea can fall, means you don't have a position is fallacy! You believe these things, whether or not said administration falls or not doesn't change your political position.

At best, international intervention can be best done through embassies and ambassadors attempting to rectify the situation and rescue those civilians being affected by the crimes against them until a diplomatic solution can come forth. Either by government consent or government replacement. And even in the case of the latter, we make sure as to avoid civilian casualties and unlike in Libya we don't bomb civilian infrastructure and homes.

That is the position of Self-Determinism, it is a position you are wholly ignorant of. Despite the fact that Fiery and I are trying our damned best to get it through your thick skull.

To show you your ignorance, you are against laws that prevent segregation because it only further divides the people and yet at the same time you're in support of "laws that prevent segregation in general"

That can only mean one thing: You're in support of legalizing illegal aliens. In your world, these minorities would ideally be "equals", but communism does not WORK for the last time. It neglects the Nation State, it neglects the individual citizens, it makes a minority out of EVERYBODY and it divides every single person on the continent.

Your position is more flawed than swiss cheese. America has become a Communist State, so we can use this nation state as an example of how flawed your position is. The African-Americans, who at once were a minority were granted full individual rights in 1963, as did all minorities in the homeland.

And yet, to this day purportedly "racism" is not solved. That's because this is not Africa, as it's not Mexico or Singapore. You cannot force together a bunch of civilizations into a borg hive and expect them to develop, to merge or otherwise to co-exist. The African-American won't stop proclaiming racism as a crutch for his problems because it exists there for him. The same goes for the other self-dependent minorities.

And what of the Caucasian-American, the English man who once carved this homeland? Well, it's quickly becoming fast spread news but you might be ignorant of it: We ourselves(I am a Caucasian-American) are losing our status in your communist ideal America.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/population.race

This isn't equality, and it is not bettering the Nation State(take a look around without your Communist-led eyeglasses. DOES IT LOOK BETTER TO YOU?) Our Unemployment rate in reality is somewhere between 20-22%. At least 75 million Americans are out of work, 150 million of which are on some kind of Government Benefit to keep them afloat(for now).

And those who aren't, are overseas, worked as government slaves only to come back and join the ranks of the unemployed! This is your Communist/marxist state in action! Whether you believe it or not, your delusional state has gotten a test run for the last half century.

The benefits that come from our diversity, come from these groups as separates from the system. They then, can propose their ideas of living to us, but we don't have to accept these ideas. Likewise, we can propose our ideas to them, but they don't have to accept them.

But a Nation-State must have an identity, America has NONE in your society. Through that identity our education is carved, our national policy is carved and our way of life is carved.

Equality, ultimately is a dream. One cannot become equal through force of the sword. Nor can one truly be representative in a foreign country. It's a shame that African-Americans and Africans overall have given up on Africa. For they are the ones who know their homeland best, and they are the ones who can cultivate it.

I am proclaiming that the English People cannot cultivate Africa, and we haven't. We've taken advantage of her lack of development but never have we focused or could have focused on her development. For we aren't Africans.

Nor can we cultivate Europe, Asia or some of these other countries. A political alliance could occur and even co-existence but if we were to become a majority in Asia, Asia would suffer a political collaspe all the same as our own.

My position then, on immigration and minority rights then are pretty simple: Feel free to add your experiences and even yes, your culture into the homeland. But because of the cultural and political differences, a bound decline is to occur should you attempt to become part of the mainstream. Just the same as if we were to attempt to cultivate Africa.

Protecting Minorities means keeping them in that same stratosphere, for it's from that position where they can employ the most success and where the Nation-State politically thrives.

Communism does not work, ever. Not politically, not socially, not in racial relations and solving that issue. Not because no one has been a "pure communist", but because Communism in it's purity is an anti-human thesis.

Rather than try to force everyone in a borg hive, or violate civil rights in an attempt to shape our culture into the ideal way we would want our culture to be. We should instead focus politically shaping our culture.

That means through our schools, through our actions and through our leadership. It means through a true Head of State and not a Political Figurehead. And it means Balanced Freedom, not Universal Freedom.

I'm a believer in Fascism,the difference between me and Fiery is that while we both believe in Self-Determinism, I am also of the belief of the livelihood of our State.

America is an organic being, just as alive as we are gentlemen. And she needs to be bred and taken care of, and we've neglected that responsibility dearly over the past half century.

You're a big boy but, here let me get you started.



Oh yeah, everything is like Hitler. Qaddafi was totally filling mass graves in record time. Same for Mohammad Mosaddegh, Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, Patrice Émery Lumumba and all the others that we've lead coups again.



Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. You claim the United States has the right to invade a sovereign nation. So why don't you show us where it says we have that right. Certainly not in the constitution and I'm certain there isn't a document in the U.N that says the United States has the sole right to invade foreign nations because it simply wants to.

Until then, you're stance on foreign policy is utter Neocon jingoistic bullshit.



I am remaining consistent, you're the one pulling the double standard of "Well, I don't like it so there should be restrictions but, I get the right to impose my will on others".

You don't even understand the basics of libertarianism. You inaccurately state that libertarians are for "doing whatever you want". Which is partially correct and partially false. Libertarianism believes freedom stops where you begin to infringe on the rights of others.



You can't keep a consistent stance so I don't really know what to say. You'll say one thing then later in the same post you'll back step.



Yeah, we can stop it. Don't shop there. They will struggle or go out of business. In this day in age do you really think a store with an openly racist policy is going to do well? Regardless, using government to force someone to hire someone they don't want to is a violation of the hiring person's property rights.



Your father sets the hiring policy and instead has hired someone to do the hiring for him. It's still your fathers right to hire someone or not. Go do some reading on property rights.



There you go, you're starting to understand. If a company discriminates against black people. Black people won't shop there and their money will instead...go to the competition!





You conceded against hate crime laws, not affirmative action. If you are actually against affirmative action, then you wouldn't have been arguing against me on the subject from the start.





Here you go not being consistent again. So where do you get this "right" to impose your will on others? Certainly isn't in the Constitution or the bill of rights. Maybe there is a document in the U.N that says that.



Not like the rest of us? We'll make bad shit happen to you. Gotta love herd mentality.



If I save money that I've earned over the years and buy a building from someone then use the same money to buy the materials to stock the business whether it be office supplies or merchandise. Where did you come into any ownership of that business? I traded my time for money and then traded that money for merchandise and a building. Under any definition of the law, that store and everything in that store is my personal property. Now, by extension to that, I have the exclusive right to sell or not to sell that property to anybody I choose. I have the exclusive legal right to bar or remove someone from my business because I own the building much like I own my house.

My time, my money, my building, my merchandise. Sole exclusive ownership. Sole exclusive rights to that property.



Stay on one side of the argument. Christ, I have a headache from my brain cells committing seppuku.



I remain consistent while you flip stances more than Mitt Romney.



You're a hypocrite because you stated that you had the right to infringe on the rights of others. When it comes down to it, I know you'd oppose having your rights infringed. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.



"I have the right to violate your rights. I have the right to fight you violating my rights" The hypocrisy is palpable.





Libel is not protected under the first amendment. Arguing with you is becoming a tiresome chore. You are causing physical pain. Seriously, you're lack of understanding of anything you are arguing about is causing me physical pain via a headache.



Yep, people don't reach your standards then we all hate each other and would gladly step over someone in the gutter rather than help. I can only imagine the cocktail of antidepressants that would be required to dig you out of such a depressingly cynical world via. Shit, if it's so bad, go ahead and kill yourself.




I am not anti-war, I am anti-proactive/aggressive wars like the Neocons love to do. That's besides the point. This will sound oddly sentimental but, I decided to join because I love my fellow Americans. Regardless of how infuriatingly narrow minded, etc they can be I still love them and I am willing to endanger my own life to protect them.



From November of 2010 until this week. I have had a very rough time financially. Ziggy has bared most of the burden while I tried to find a new job. What income I did earn was put towards food for us. If I starve, I can't continue to help. So I am serious when I said, I personally have no money. I even closed a bank account last year because it had nothing in it. My education is entirely paid for through scholarships so I don't earn anything from that either. I make enough money to ensure I don't starve. Hell, my father had to give me the money so I could get a haircut and the physical I require to join the Corps.



Ziggy does. 2011 was a rough year for contractors like me.



Sure, that would help out in the short term but, then I would require aid from other people. So, that solves nothing. It replaces one poor, starving homeless person with another poor, starving, homeless person. If you weren't going to such extremes to justify yourself then maybe we could have had a constructive argument.

Regardless, I am done with this section. Continue to harp on it if you wish, I don't really care anymore.



I understand the position, you're a hypocrite who has the right to infringe on the rights of others but, would fight tooth and nail to prevent someone else from infringing on his rights. Hypocrisy, nothing more nothing less.




Keep telling yourself that if makes you happy Lundi. Glad I could cheer you up.



When I was younger, I was a communist. Fast forward a decade or so and I'm a libertarian. So no, I am not set in stone.



I called you a troll because I feel like you're screwing with me and then laughing as I take you seriously.

[quote="Fiery_penguin_of_doom"]

You're a big boy but, here let me get you started.


Yaaay, took oyu long enough to link any of your claims to some type of source material.

Though, of course, i find it hilarious that you didn't do the same with the original claim you made about the current Libyan situation, which was the original thing I felt smelled of bullshit. I suppose when you don't have real sources for your claims, you make more claims until you do. Interesting argumentation style.



Firstly, the mass graves thing is just an example. Are you saying these guys weren't violently oppressing their people That their people were going, "Wow it's great to live under THIS guy's thumb."? I don't think so. Point still stands. I'm waiting for you to actually provide an argument, instead of introduce a bunch of red herrings.



Nope. You're perverting the burden of proof. If this were about belief in god, you're currently taking the stance "There is no god."

Which, DOES have a burden of proof with it, you silly.

Seriously, do you honestly think you have no burden of proof when you say, "Bullshit, you're wrong and stupid."? Because if so, you might want to take an intro to logic course bud.

As far as me demonstrating MY point: Rights are bestowed by the people. I am a part of the people, and I bestow that right to the united states, hence, the united states has that right. Do I need to spell out a syllogism for you? Because I'll do it if you want.



Libertarians ARE for doing whatever you want. They're for rich people keeping their money and using it for whatever they want, and for anyone to marry who they want, have whatever job they want, go where they want, all that. The Libertarian view is taking the stance of total social freedom, and total economic freedom. Which is...letting people do what they want.



I've remained consistent this whole time, the fact that you can't understand basic logic isn't my problem buddy. You're making the assertion that when I say, "I have the right to do X" then I'm also saying "I OUGHT to do X."


That's what we logical people call a non sequitor, and you're projecting it on me, so you're straw manning me with a non sequitor, and when I object to you doing it, you say, "Pfft, you can't remain consistent."

I feel like I'm arguing with an undergrad that took 4 political science courses and now thinks he knows everything.



Ahh there we go with the libertarian universal salve, "People will do what's right, and stop supporting racists like that." Sorry, but you're wrong. Big evil corporations do what they want, people KNOW the bullshit they do, and still buy from them to save whatever pennies they can.

Most people know the bad things about Wal Mart, they tend to ignore it, or rationalize it away though, because where else can you get two pairs of jeans for 10 dollars? Oh, and before you simply sum your counter argument with, "Lolurfullofshit" like you have been, how else do you think Wal Mart's been doing so well, when it's common knowledge that they're sexist when it comes to women in the workplace, they're anti-union to the point of spreading propaganda, and the destruction of mom and pop stores by its locations happens all the time.

Yet, none of that seems to stop people from shopping there. Funny that.



Go do some reading on social contract theory. It is my dad's right to hire someone or not, but the fact is, if he lives and does business in this country, then he agrees to abide by its laws, and social contracts, including the fact that racism? Not tolerated. The laws are way against someone who tries to do that, and they stand to lose their company in lawsuits. Is that the best way to go about it? No, I think it could be better, but it's a step in the right direction.



God job, completely disregard my point, don't bother trying to debunk it, and try and build your libertarian policies off of it. In any case, you're still wrong, because of reasons I've already stated. Discriminating against customers or having a bad reputation in no way necessarily hurts a company. Sorry, but that's the fact of life you're gonna have to deal with. :)



The difference is, you're equivocating affirmative action, with having laws keeping people from discriminating. Does it not occur to you that it's possible to have more comprehensive laws that don't have the flaws of affirmative action? That don't FORCE you to hire minorities, purely because they're minorities? And yes, I did say I was against business owners being forced to hire minorities just because. Again, not my fault you have an inability to pay attention.



Why thank you.



I gave myself that right...just like ALL rights that ALL people have. Do you honestly think if a right isn't written down somewhere, then it necessarily doesn't exist? That's insane. Rights come from us in the FIRST place.



Pot, kettle enjoyed your date yesterday and wants to go out again.

Not only have you agreed that this is the necessary conclusion of ANY political philosophy, but that's the way the world works in the FIRST place. Don't like it? Tough. If 99% of the world wanted to enslave the 1%? Guess what retaliation the 1% could do? None at all. The only thing they could do was try to fight, physically, argue about why slavery is wrong(my position) to see if they cant lower that 99%, or run away and form a commune isolated from the 99%.

Which is your position?



Except that the money you saved? Came from somewhere. Likely? People buying your services, or merchandise, or you receiving a loan from a bank, which used other people's money to do that. Money doesn't just appear out of nowhere and you just all of a sudden have money to own a business with. No, you have someone to thank for every cent you make, and it's not just yourself.



And other people spent THEIR time, and THEIR money, in a way that allowed you to HAVE that building, and that merchandise.

So no, you don't have exclusive ownership. Sorry.



I'm remaining consistent. the fact that your brain can't comprehend simple words isn't my fault.



BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously though. that was a funny joke. Lol, the idea that you've been consistent. Goodness. You've got me rolling on the floor.



Oh, so I'm a hypocrite because you simply assumed a conclusion that I never gave you.

In that case, you're a hypocrite, because I'm going to assume that you don't want Bill Gates to have the right to spend his money the way he could, because you REALLY feel like he should spend that money helping other people, and that you support laws making sure that rich people like him have to give money to charities.

Oh wait, you never said any of that, so that's not fair of me to say.

You idiot.

I'm PERFECTLY OK with people infringing on my rights, provided they've got some valid reasons to do it. Otherwise, I will fight it, as I already said, and you quoted.



I honestly can't see why you don't understand this.

I have the right to violate your rights, and YOU have the right to try and stop me, however you want, including, oh I don't know, convincing me that it's not a good idea. There's no hypocrisy here...I'm giving everyone the same exact rights that I extend to myself.



Yes, I know, because, like the founding fathers recognized, I believe that some rights ought to have limits, including speech.



Arguing with you is becoming a tiresome chore. You are causing physical pain. Seriously, your lack of understanding od anything I say is causing me physical pain via a headache.

See how much that accomplishes?



Yup, I said that. totally, oh wait...

Seriously, englishmotherfuckerdoyouspeakit.jpg



I'm going to do exactly what you've done to me, just to see how you like it. "You're not anti-war? You're ok with war? fucking neocon warmongering bullshit."

See what I did there? Completely ignoring what you're saying picking out select words and arguing against a complete non position that you don't hold? Yeah, doesn't feel good, does it?

Go ahead and fight for my right to say what I say. I appreciate it. I still think you're wrong though. :)



Ok, so what you're saying is, "Yes, I DO have '0' dollars."

Now, let me ask you a few questions. What if Ziggy, and your dad, never gave you that money or paid for your stuff? Where do you think scholarship money comes from? If they decided, "Nah, fuck you FPOD, I'm keeping my money." would you say, "Well that's your right, since it's your money, I understand." Or would you go, "Dude, I'm in a REALLY bad spot right now, a LITTle help won't hurt you, dick."?



I stand corrected then. I still don't believe that you'd literally adopt african families to move to america and live with you if you had...say...JUST ENOUGH money to do that though. The max I believe you MIGHT do is help some people you personally know.



Oh good, I was actually going to suggest we stop. The fact that you seem to willfully ignore my points and pluck new ones from the ether of an alternate reality is really starting to get on my tits.

In all seriousness though FPOD, for the most part, I have little to argue with you about. The only thing I think we really disagree on is the libertarian position's efficacy. It's a shame we disagree so whole heartedly that it's turned into an out and out flame war/bitchfest.




I really don't understand how you can understand my position, and call it hypocrisy. How can someone be a hypocrite for giving everyone the same rights he gives himself? I honestly don't get it. Do you think I say that people don't have the right to fight my attempts to infringe on their rights? Because they DO have that right, and I never, EVER denied it. I have no clue why you think I've decided that right disappears somehow when it's me doing the infringing. I've never indicated at all in our entire exchange that this was the case, yet you've presumed it just is.



Just knowing that the great FPOD pays attention to me brings a smile to my face.



Well you're certainly showing no signs of giving a shit towards being willing to change your mind now. Also, I think it's interesting that throughout your life you went from one political extreme, to another. Seems being a moderate just isn't in your vocabulary.



By the end of this post, I really feel like just becoming one. Especially since you show no signs of wanting to have any conversation that isn't me conceding every point to you that you've presumed is true from the get go.

Seriously, it's like talking to a wall.

Tbh. I think you're both kinda losing it. There's an increasing amount of miss quotation and the argument quality is dropping on both sides, mainly because you seem to be talking about two different things quite often.

It's a fun read though, so go on if you feel like it :)

I think this thread has long gone past the rails and into oblivion.

-_-


[i]I don't even understand what you people are trying to prove to each other.
I don't even think you both don't know either.

We're trying to get Lundi to understand the position of Self-Determinism, it's a position that has fallen on his deaf ears. I'll try to simplify the argument in a sentence or less for him:
You do have the "right" to violate other's rights(as in, if no one knew you were going to commit murder, no one could physically stop you from doing so.) But, in the order of law: You do not have that right and so as soon as someone knows of your malicious intent or in response to a murder you've committed, your rights have been taken away(or at least they are now being opposed.)

You can argue that you have rights, but all you really have is the right of opposition. You're neither free nor Human, you're a beast. If you wish to maintain a criminal position, then perhaps one day we'll see you in a prison cell.

Note: I cut out the segments that I believe either would just result in more personal attacks from either of us or segments that are less productive than bashing our heads against a brick wall.



Gaddafi actually took care of his people quite well. Free education, healthcare and plans to provide free housing which were never successfully implemented. Under Gaddafi the median income per capita rose to 11,000 which is the 5th highest in Africa.

Gaddafi's regime was a U.S ally for many years, then suddenly we made a 180 and ignore the fact that we used Libya as a place to interrogate terror suspects as we began bombing the bejeesus out of him.

Kind of suspicious that we supported such a "repressive" regime for all those years only to turn around and bomb him. The conflict between the history and the official story doesn't raise some flags for you?

There are a dozen other events throughout history with that list I gave you. They show a clear history of the CIA being involved in arming and training rebel factions to remove democratically elected governments that are not friendly towards the United States.



Unfortunately for your stance, the Federal Government is restricted by the constitution. You can claim to give it all the "rights" you want but, that doesn't change the fact the Federal Government is bound by the constitution. Get an amendment passed and then I'll agree with you. Also, rights only extend to living organisms like people, animals or plants(depending how liberal/progressive you want to get), not organizations like corporations. The Federal Government has no rights, Bank of America has no rights but, the individual employees of both organizations have rights.



In that context, you are right. However you were implying previously that Libertarians throw everything out the window in a orgy of debauchery and vice. As if a Libertarian was voted into power then we'd have legalized murder.




Can't blame the ignorant. "Forgive the, for they know not what they do".



In my opinion, that knowledge is not really that common.I've known people who work for wal-mart and none of them believe that Wal-mart has sexist or racist hiring practices. These are people who work inside the company and are exposed to the policies. If they are unaware of it, then they are probably ignorant that it even exists. I invite you to walk into a store, stop 1 person and say "Did you know Wal-mart was caught using illegal immigrants in their stores?" or "Did you know wal-mart gets fined hundreds of millions of dollars for discriminatory policies?"

I am willing bet that they will say they never heard of either.



Got me there but, that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing for the repealing of Affirmative Action which places the restriction on your father and requires that he hire people that he may find unqualified for a position. You've already stated that you were against affirmative action. Since we agree, we can end this argument now.



So if Wal-mart put up a sign that said "No colored". Black people will still try to shop there? There is a business in my city that has a sign that states that firearms are nor permitted on the property. I informed the company management that I would not enter their establishment until they removed their size and changed their policy.




I question the requirement of such laws on the grounds that they violate the property rights of the business owner (or his liaison). There was a story in 2009 I believe about several firefighters taking a test to become captains. The results of the test were thrown out because not enough minorities passed the test. Does it really matter the color of your skin when you're commanding men as they put out a fire? Fire doesn't care about your skin color and neither should anybody else.



Then I give myself the right to deprive you of that right. I also give myself the right to infringe on your right to infringe on my rights. See how silly this gets? In all honesty, this is where I think you are trolling me.



Wasn't in the scenario. You worked, traded your time and energy to your employer for money. That money is your property now. You bought the exclusive rights to the merchandise that your store is selling. If you sell me a laptop, car, vacuum, pet or a house. The item you sold ceases to be your item and is now my item.



That is not how ownership works. When I buy that building from the owner or owners. They are giving up their rights to that building. If I buy a car from you, you are then giving me exclusive ownership of that vehicle and giving up your own rights to that vehicle. This is done through the transfer of the title of the vehicle. Go to a title pawn and don't make the payments, your car becomes their car. You do not have legal ownership of that car anymore regardless of how long you had it.



Again, no you don't. Violate my property rights by keying my car or slashing my tire then I have the right to bring legal action upon you for restitution. Violate my first amendment rights, I have the right to bring legal action for damages or suffering you have caused me. You do not have the right to violate the rights of another human being. You can say you "give" yourself the right to do so and truthfully you could make a constitutional argument with it but, I doubt the case would ever gain any traction.



I stated that you have a cynical world view. I would be depressed all the time if I walked around thinking everyone was selfish, greedy and just an overall jackass waiting to stab you in the back at the first opportunity. At least, that is what I am drawing from your positions.



You advocated for invading other countries, I advocate the opposite. Can't be a warmonger when you believe in only defending your own country from an aggressive nation. I do not advocate, endorse or precipitate war, therefore I can not be a warmonger.



"Well that's unfortunate for me but, it's your money and your decision".

I have asked my father for rent money at one time and he declined. I went home, sat down on my couch, applied to a few more jobs and thought about how I was going to make rent so I wouldn't be evicted.



I'll help anyone I can given my means. If I have extra food, I'll give away what I personally don't require to survive. In December of 2009 we gave a weeks worth of food to one of Ziggy's Co-workers when she had to spend most of her money fixing her car after thieves broke into it and damaged the steering column when they failed to steal her car.

When I talk about the role of charity in a Libertarian society, I aim to prove that it works by physically doing it. Leading by example and whatnot.



This I will apologize for. I've picked up bad habits from other political forums and I can't seem to shake them.

[quote]Well you're certainly showing no signs of giving a shit towards being willing to change your mind now.

You have to convince me that people should not be allowed to live their lives as free people, that's a hard sell. If you can come up with a convincing argument that stated why people shouldn't be allowed to freely live their own lives. Then maybe you can sway me. It's possible, it just won't be easy. Gibbous converted me from a party Libertarian to advocating a branch of Neoliberalism (Ordoliberal if you are curious) for a while but, eventually I drifted back into libertarian territory and have been reading up on the subsections and branches of the various libertarian philosophies.

I had fun reading this discussion, but I really think biglundi is being inconsistent.



You referenced social contract theory, which says that we surrender our rights to the government, and the government then protects our rights. Yet you are saying that you give yourself rights.



Isn't this Anarchy? You're saying that everyone has the right to impose their will on others, and that we have to fight it if we don't like it. But throughout this discussion, you've been advocating that the government needs to regulate charity, wal-mart, and "racist dickheads".


Everything else I want to say has already been said by FPoD

Oh then by all MEANS, if his economic policy resulted in fiscal prosperity, then we should just stay out of the implementation of monstrous policies like Sharia Law, indoctrinating school students with his ideology. Or maybe the fact that he delineated the importance of protecting oneself from diseases. Just like I call out the Catholic Church for saying Condoms are worse than AIDS? I condemn Gadafi for saying HIV is a peaceful virus that straight people have nothing to worry about.

Also, if he's going to make a speech and say that the United States needs to prevent wars more often, then maybe that's a tacit allowance that we ought to do everything in our power, in accordance to his own words, to stop oppression, wherever we find it.

I mean, jesus, his own people have tried to assassinate him in the past, clearly they had a problem with him.



Social contract theory is regularly applied to the government, but it's applied to other places as well, including the fact that we have to deal with EACHOTHEr on a regular basis. I surrender my right to kill you for various reasons, for instance.

We do give ourselves rights, we're also the ones that decide when they're allowed to be infringed upon, or when other people should have theirs infringed upon.

Also, social contract theory doesn't explain where rights COME from, just what we do with them. Rights still come from us regardless.



Anarchy? No. Otherwise I wouldn't be advocating the idea of Law, and the fact that I do believe the government should make laws keeping people from being "racist dickheads" on a large scale. Fighting other people infringing on our rights is necessarily done through legal channels, as well as rational discourse.

Oh ,and I never said government should regulate charity. Anarchy is a methodology, and not one that I've ever once implied to support. Anarchy states that there ought be NO regulation, NO laws, NO government, and that if your rights are being infringed on, the only recourse you should be allowed to have is either physical violence, or discourse. I offer another option, legal recourse.

How ELSE does one fight against people imposing their will on others in an anarchistic system? I don't support it, it's too limiting in what people can do to protect themselves. I support both being able to be aggressive, and defensive, at the same time, for all people.

Why do I feel as though I'm being ignored? **sighs** A Law is not something that "settles disputes"(though, in the way you outlined it certainly could look that way). A Law governs and regulates society, in the order in which we would like it. Laws are made so that the country, the towns and the people living in them can peacefully co-exist relatively smoothly.

Ironically, for a moment Lundi you argued a Fascist position(though you didn't realize it), in saying that if it were proven that porn produced more rape that you would give up your right to watch porn. Ultimately, I disagree. If we have a society where sexual conduct is openly talked about and encouraged(remember, in the mid-19th century it was something taboo and private. It's through that mindset that we still have a fucked up sexual society today.) Then proper sexual conduct can be taught and then applied.

For example, if grade school children learned that there's no such thing as "coodies" and that the feelings they have for that little 8-9 year old boy/girl crush is love and it's a real symbolic Human experience. And from there on, high school and college there is more sexual and intellectual education as to the why/why not's and the legality. Then, that'll have a much better effect than "let's ban pornography(sexual content) to prevent rape!"

Sounds logical, in fact it's illogical. Through proper education, pornography can possibly be used as an educational asset(as well as a release valve).

I'll argue that most rape and most violent crimes occur because of a society that looks too much at the artificial and not at the sum of the Human Experience. Similarly, the concept of racism is an artificial position(I don't like X, because his race isn't the same as mine). I can't hold the position of racism because it is artificial.

I must have something articulate and in fact in basis before I make an argument for it. My previous arguments before, were from a Nation-State standpoint. We, much like the animals in Nature have different "races"(tribes) of our Human Existence. And these differences can be our strengths, if we experience them through that individual-yet-collective existence.

That's not what we have now, we have a bunch of different individuals FORCED to be collectives. Their differences and their individuality has been negated, we therefore are not receiving the benefits of our diversity.

Diversity is only a strength when we remain diverse, or when we choose to be collective as a unit. WHEN WE CHOOSE.

And even then, in Self-determinism you will still have different groups. But when Group A joins Group B, and Group B joins group C and Group D joins group C. Even though these are individual alliances, they are mutually collective of their own free will.

This is the Fascist position, and it's the ultimate position of freedom. Where we acknowledge our organic existence, and also of the need for self-regulation. The Libertarian doesn't take that decisive stance, and therefore in the face of calamity he will need the support of the citizenry who are simply inept to provide said political support.

He who takes leadership is called upon to provide leadership, you can't ask the sheep to take the role of the hen.

I'm ignoring you because you're not saying anything new from the first time I responded to you...that and I'm already arguing with a libertarian, I find it tiresome to spread myself thin and argue with two people I'm staunchly politically opposed to, who also have different stances.

As far as laws governing and regulating society, I'd like to know how that takes away from my assertion that one of the many uses of law is to settle disputes between self given rights? It doesn't.



Wrong, that's not what I said.

I said that if it were proven that taking away porn would reduce rape to a significantly minimal low, I would have no problem giving up that right. There's a difference.



It was a hypothetical. I'm well aware why rape happens, where it happens, and what goes on through the minds of most rapists. And I'm not convinced, in any way, that porn is to blame.

Learn what a hypothetical is, please. You're arguing a stance I don't have.



Firstly, I feel the need to YET AGAIN tell you, it was a hypothetical. Lrn2comprehendarguments.

Secondly, I encourage all of that as well. I think sexual education is a must. So...you're not arguing with me at all.



Seriously...learn...what a hypothetical is.



You've clearly never had an argument with a racist. They don't think it's artificial at all. Here, I'll give you an example. Here's a racist I argued with recently on youtube:

"You need to research how genealogists have discovered that African blacks are missing DNA found in Caucasians and Asians originating from Neanderthals. Caucasians and Asians are therefore actually hybrids, Africans are not, making them a different species. The lack of Neanderthal DNA may explain the lower average IQ of African blacks, and their superiority in physical labour."

Now, before you go off on me and tell me why he's wrong, I already explained how wrong he is, and lol'd at him. The validity of the content of his post isn't the point. It's the fact that he literally thinks it's a scientific fact that africans are inferior to Caucasians.



Like, say, made up geneology facts? Like the guy I quoted above?



Yeah, I know, and it made me shake my head in boredom when I explained the problem with Nationalism, and you brushed it off by calling it "Anti-nationalist propaganda". Clearly you have no intention of critically examining your position.



We do choose. We aren't being forced to stay here. There's no military telling you that you don't get to move. There's nothing telling you that you don't get to go anywhere because you're part of a collective. I'm having a hard time deriving a point from your ramblings.



...I'm sorry, but you're advocating that fascism is a position of freedom.

I honestly don't know what to say. It's so stupid...it...wow...just...wow.

You claim you're debating me but all you're really doing is that "Wow, no one has ever argued that before so there's no way it can possibly make sense." Yes, it can make sense should you read up on some literature and study the history of the position. It's NOT Universal Freedom, because Universal Freedom demands responsibility, it demands the sheep understand logically their position in life. For example, you have failed time and again to understand this position in claiming you have the right to defy universal laws so as long as others have that same right of defiance. Since you can't comprehend this, I don't want to give you universal freedom.

It's as you just said: The "facts" weren't facts, they were blank statements made by the racist. If these facts were true(which they weren't), the media then at the mid-19th century would have clamored at them and used them as legitimate evidence for separatism. No, I wouldn't have therefore used them. It should've been obvious I wouldn't use them when I said I wasn't looking for anything artificial.

Why should I critically examine truism? Why should I critically examine a position that reflects the laws of Nature and Mankind? Take, for example the bees as they organize in a beehive. Do the bees call forth, other flying-type animals to help them? Nonsense, only the bee knows the routine of the hive and only the bee lives in that lifestyle. All others are fiercely opposed.

The birds are the rulers of the skies, and they respect each other as such. Similarly, insects hold the domain of the forests and lions/tigers hold the domain of the deserts along with other large mammals. Through mother nature's course, there is competition and ultimately death, which is to recycle and keep nature itself organized in a timely manner.

All Fascism argues, is that mankind is much the same way. And our ultimate existence comes from when we're one with nature, one with ourselves and our best capabilities. The world you and I live in today, is a world of corporatism, where we believe we're free but really, we're not. With our mental development as frozen as it is, we make the choices that are "obvious" to us through our media and those choices are the ones that our corporate sponsors would like us to make.

Even though they've accomplished major success, corporations are very upset at this political movement of millions of Americans who have refused this corporatist world. Hence, think tanks have thought of ways including paid subscriptions and memberships of trying to firmly tighten the gap. But, it won't work. People cannot be controlled, and really who wants to control an organic, natural existence? To control and to regulate are two different things. To control is to force somebody, to regulate is to guide somebody.

I'm not a controlling person, because I know nature can't be controlled and I see Humans and Nature as one and the same. But, by guiding people to the right path and through setting the standards early we can achieve a high form of life.

There are those who refuse to be guided, and those who are simply can't be a part of our society. What's wrong with eliminating the weeds? Our Ultimate Freedom position is retarded in that we'd eat a poisonous apple just because it also grew in our garden. My position is that if I see a poisonous apple in my garden, I throw it out and I don't bother to look back.

Violent criminals, rapists, serial murderers. These people no longer have rights, much less any dignity. Keeping them in my country, even in a prison-facility is much too indignant. I'd rather ship them off to an unmanned island, give them enough food to live out their pathetic lives and let them kill each other off there.

And who is to complain? Those who rob people of their lives, money and their freedom are shipped off, never to be seen or heard from again. The State returns to an organic, healthy existence. The People are free to exercise economic and social freedoms, the State can thrive in a government capacity. It's perfect, because we didn't hold ourselves to a Ultimate Freedom-Non Organic Position.

I'm starting to get confused. I liked this discussion, but there are so many different issues being discussed that it's just confusing everyone, and no one is convincing anyone. This isn't at all because of a lack of good arguments, but because there are too many topics being discussed.

In future threads, we need to be sure to stay on one topic at a time, or else we have these replies that are 300 lines long that are impossible to read. unfortunately, it's hard to stay on topic, because of the way debates work:

If someone makes a statement, and you don't prove him wrong/don't respond, he assumes he's right. Because of this, you start a discussion about that statement, which gets off topic. Eventually, all these off-topic discussions rack up, and it's unreadable.

To prevent this, we need to simple state: "I disagree with this, but this is a separate issue to be discussed in it's own thread".

As for this thread's original topic, it pretty much was resolved after Flaser's video