why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?

[Arthur Brain]

Not all of those things are good.

Let me guess, the social safety net and women's suffrage were the 'not good' things right?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Taxing people is also known as "civilization," CL, and way to be late to the party.

Your problem is your selfishness, not any kind of liberty-loving nobility.

No, taking from people by force is not consistent with "civilization." You are too selfish and evil to consider the possibility of NOT mugging people. Oh, you won't do the dirty work yourself. But you whine to government to do it for you. That makes you a coward. And not just you. Every single person who supports "taxes" yet wouldn't mug their neighbors themselves to pay for what they want to pay for in its absence.

You don't get to stay and watch the movie. If you think of it as a property issue you'll come to oppose yourself on the point.

This is a misunderstanding of what really happens.

Say the town of Hereticville passed a law that said everyone had to buy a movie ticket from movie theater A to watch the movie Interstellar. "ticket sellers" would go by every house to "offer" tickets to residents. If you wanted to watch a different movie, or just wanted to be left alone without going to the movies, or wanted to go to a different theater, too bad. The seller would "invite" everyone to buy a ticket, being careful to remind the people that there was a stiff fine for not doing so. Failure to pay that fine would result in being locked up. If you resisted that, they would do whatever they had to do to get you in the cage, even killing you if they had to. But, you do get a movie ticket in return. They aren't lying to you when they say you can watch the movie.

Now, say Old Timer is unhappy with this arrangement, he doesn't want to go to the movies, and he doesn't think that any movie theaters should have the right to "sell" tickets by method of legal force. Yet he buys a ticket because he knows that a violent blue uniformed gang will ultimately cage him if he doesn't. He also decides, "hey, since I'm being forced to pay for this, I'm not really losing anything by going to movie theater A and watching the movie rather than paying for nothing." He continues to lobby against the law that forces people to buy these tickets, calling them unjust and theft. Though he continues to buy them himself when demanded, he cries out against the injustice every time someone is thrown into the cages because they didn't want the tickets. Simpleton A tells Old Timer that he is supporting theft because "you don't get to watch a movie if you don't pay for it." Old Timer wonders who people like Simpleton are taken seriously, and how in the world otherwise decent guys like Trigger-happy Tom and Kidnapper Kevin are able to work for the violent gang in blue and enforce this law. People call Old Timer an "anarchist" who "doesn't believe in any laws." They call him "selfish" and a "freeloader." After all, some people wouldn't have jobs if it wasn't for this system fo violence. Old Timer should stop being so selfish and deal with it.

If you can't see how stupid this analogy is by this point, I give up.

Not if they have the same heart on the matter. That is, if I promote and believe in a government whereby a good bit of my charity is accomplished paying into it then it's really not functionally different than your giving coin to a different large charitable institution.

Or do you feed and cloth people personally, literally?

The issue isn't that you use the government as a charitable organization, but that you condone it forcing others to do so. The Red Cross or the Salvation Army (despite the name) will not send armed agents to your door and lock you up or physically harm you at any point because you don't donate. You know this, to. You are smarter than this. A couple days ago I would have thought you were of similar intelligence level to me. I do not think so now.

You get shot ... with imaginary bullets. Great argument.

You get locked up. If you resist, violent thugs will harm you, and the stupid masses will hail them as heroes.

It's hard to have a conversation that amounts to anything if you're having it with someone who reserves the right to rewrite the dictionary. oly: No, neither property nor taxes can be rightly called theft.

Or, our compact provides a great many protections and benefits. Anyone who finds the exchange unfair or undesirable can, at the age by which they'd be taxed to pay their part for the benefits, renounce their part in the compact and leave it. What they can't do is remain and keep the benefits they aren't contributing to/paying for. Attempting to do that would amount to...stealing.

Its like telling people to leave their homes, which belong to them, if they don't want to buy a movie ticket, or live like serfs on land which they own rightly.

You don't believe in property rights, not real ones, for anyone but the State. Just man up and admit it, Town. Like most people here, and most "Christians" throughout human history, you do not worship God. You worship the government.

No, I said I wouldn't mug someone. If you're going to insist otherwise we shouldn't waste time trying to have a conversation.

You wouldn't mug someone, unless you were a cop.

:thumb:

are the two of us the only people who get this in this conversation?

Does the rather large, self-serving guy in blue represent the capitalist?

You confuse cronyism with capitalism. Go educate yourself please. Read some LRC.

I object to irrationality. When someone calls property or taxation theft they're being irrational..

.


You have three people, two of them vote to take money from the third.
That is democracy.

Yep.

I suppose it was theft to free the slaves, huh?

Did you really translate "not all of those were good things" as "all of those things were bad things?" Abolition was a good thing. Though it wasn't gone about the right way.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Let me guess, the social safety net and women's suffrage were the 'not good' things right?

Yeah, I'd say so. "workers rights" and "civil rights" are also really broad, and I have to wonder whether "liberals" would mean something good by those things or not, but I'll wait for specifics.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, I'd say so. "workers rights" and "civil rights" are also really broad, and I have to wonder whether "liberals" would mean something good by those things or not, but I'll wait for specifics.

So, you'd sooner we lived in an age akin to where women have no say, and effectively no voice as before, yet you support Nang having vociferous opinions on here so why is that? If we bring back the patriarchal society of yesteryear then she wouldn't have the basic right to log onto a computer and air her views...

You've already had the flak where it comes to the poorest in society so there's nothing really to add to what's already been said. Your idea of 'theft' is an ill conceived one from the outset. Where it comes to 'workers and civil rights' then you'd need to define what you would deem viable although you obviously don't include women in either.

 

[quip]

You confuse cronyism with capitalism. Go educate yourself please. Read some LRC

Well, I did give it the breadth of attention it deserved....you, on the other hand...........:chuckle:

 

[Christian Liberty]

So, you'd sooner we lived in an age akin to where women have no say, and effectively no voice as before, yet you support Nang having vociferous opinions on here so why is that? If we bring back the patriarchal society of yesteryear then she wouldn't have the basic right to log onto a computer and air her views...

You've already had the flak where it comes to the poorest in society so there's nothing really to add to what's already been said. Your idea of 'theft' is an ill conceived one from the outset. Where it comes to 'workers and civil rights' then you'd need to define what you would deem viable although you obviously don't include women in either.

I don't support patriarchy. I don't support women being silenced.

I discussed women's suffrage awhile back. Its really a weird side point. I view "voting rights" as a purely pragmatic issue since, unlike the right ot life, liberty, and property, voting isn't an actual right. As such, if removing women's suffrage would limit the influence of "mom culture" on politics, I think that would be a good thing to do. Doing that would also go with the Biblical principle of men as leaders. Nang was actually the one who originally brought this up and I agreed with her. I wasn't the one who originally posted it. I've only really continued discussing it because people have been asking about it. I'm not seriously advocating that the 19th amendment be abolished. To do so would both be only a means to an end, and likely as difficult if not more so to acheive than the end I'm going for anyway. But I think letting "mom culture" have any say in our politics to begin with was a mistake.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't support patriarchy. I don't support women being silenced.

I discussed women's suffrage awhile back. Its really a weird side point. I view "voting rights" as a purely pragmatic issue since, unlike the right ot life, liberty, and property, voting isn't an actual right. As such, if removing women's suffrage would limit the influence of "mom culture" on politics, I think that would be a good thing to do. Doing that would also go with the Biblical principle of men as leaders. Nang was actually the one who originally brought this up and I agreed with her. I wasn't the one who originally posted it. I've only really continued discussing it because people have been asking about it. I'm not seriously advocating that the 19th amendment be abolished. To do so would both be only a means to an end, and likely as difficult if not more so to acheive than the end I'm going for anyway. But I think letting "mom culture" have any say in our politics to begin with was a mistake.

What do you mean by 'mom culture' exactly?

 

[Christian Liberty]

What do you mean by 'mom culture' exactly?

It was a phrase I saw on another site recently. Basically the whole safety cult where government has to mandate all sorts of safety rules "because the children" and so forth. Mother's have a motherly instinct to protect children so they're more inclined to support this kind of nonsense than anyone else. That motherly instinct is a good thing when it comes to raising children, but it has no place whatsoever in politics.

Then again, I'll freely admit that I think society would be a better place if only I was allowed to vote. Again, voting isn't an actual right, its purely a pragmatic tool either for defending liberty or for destroying it, and it is far more often used for the latter than the former.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It was a phrase I saw on another site recently. Basically the whole safety cult where government has to mandate all sorts of safety rules "because the children" and so forth. Mother's have a motherly instinct to protect children so they're more inclined to support this kind of nonsense than anyone else. That motherly instinct is a good thing when it comes to raising children, but it has no place whatsoever in politics.

Ah, so it should solely be left to men as they'll make all the tough and proper decisions without being 'hindered' by any sort of emotive or empathic aspect then?

Then again, I'll freely admit that I think society would be a better place if only I was allowed to vote. Again, voting isn't an actual right, its purely a pragmatic tool either for defending liberty or for destroying it, and it is far more often used for the latter than the former.

Hmm, I think you'd find a revolution happening in short order if that were ever to surreally come about...:chuckle:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Ah, so it should solely be left to men as they'll make all the tough and proper decisions without being 'hindered' by any sort of emotive or empathic aspect then?

In my personal experience, and I'm not saying this is always true, but I think it generally is, women are more emotional.

Illogical emotions (and no, I am not denying emotions can work hand in hand with logic) have no place in politics. Note that I didn't say they were bad, just that politics is not their place. If compassion drives you to give money to the poor, that's good. If it compels you to vote for a "law" to restrict your neighbor's behavior not because of anything he actually did but "just in case", that's evil.

Hmm, I think you'd find a revolution happening in short order if that were ever to surreally come about...:chuckle:

Our society is hopelessly evil and unlikely to ever be fixed. I am way more interested in finding people who mostly agree with me, exchanging ideas, and hopefully eventually get to a point where we can theologically separate from the criminals and their supporters. I am not under the impression that America will even halfway be fixed in my lifetime.

 

[Christian Liberty]

When money, a thing, property, is more important to you than people starving then you're placing the value of that thing above the value of human life. When the disciples were hungry they ate the priest's wheat.

Another example? "Are there any Jews in your home?" inquired the SS.

Or, there are times when moral values conflict with one another. It is wrong to be deceitful, but it would be wicked to deliver an innocent up to be murdered to satisfy the lesser point.

"Shoot me if you want to pig, but I will not tell you anything"... regardless of whether there are any Jews in your home or not.

In fact, I would DEFINITELY say this if there weren't any Jews in my home... good to waste a Nazi thug's time.

 

[Arthur Brain]

In my personal experience, and I'm not saying this is always true, but I think it generally is, women are more emotional.

Illogical emotions (and no, I am not denying emotions can work hand in hand with logic) have no place in politics. Note that I didn't say they were bad, just that politics is not their place. If compassion drives you to give money to the poor, that's good. If it compels you to vote for a "law" to restrict your neighbor's behavior not because of anything he actually did but "just in case", that's evil.

Overall I'd say it may be true to a point, but I think it's more a case of women being open about such more than men rather than men lacking the same. Supporting a system whereby society has a provision for those who are poor - including many who work who benefit from such too - is not restricting any 'neighbour's' behaviour. How you formulate that comparison with such is bizarre.

Our society is hopelessly evil and unlikely to ever be fixed. I am way more interested in finding people who mostly agree with me, exchanging ideas, and hopefully eventually get to a point where we can theologically separate from the criminals and their supporters. I am not under the impression that America will even halfway be fixed in my lifetime.

Of course you are, because in your view it's only your opinion that counts or anyone else who gives a thumbs up to it. You'll hardly be the only one on that score but thankfully you don't have that megalomaniac like power.

 

[Town Heretic]

No, taking from people by force is not consistent with "civilization."

Rather, if you take benefit when you're free to leave you are by that taking subjecting yourself to the terms of the compact. Don't care for the terms? No one will stop you from leaving.

Say the town of Hereticville passed a law that said everyone had to buy a movie ticket from movie theater A to watch the movie Interstellar.

Your premise is flawed. Taxes have been a part of the foundation of our compact. It's an important distinction. Now those taxes generate real benefits across a broad spectrum and the terms of participation and accepting benefit are no mystery to anyone who is born to it or who makes a willful decision to enter into it.

There's no point in your attempting to twist things a bit and find a hypothetical that isn't on point so you can call people names and feel positively Swift doing it.

If you can't see how stupid this analogy is by this point, I give up.

Because to differ with your distorted attempt to represent the position you differ with can only mean that.

Let's see where the bottom is for you.

You are smarter than this. A couple days ago I would have thought you were of similar intelligence level to me.

Intelligence first then. And to judge that you'd have to feel...

I do not think so now.

Well that changes...nothing really. But if it makes you happy I'm happy. Many a moron and many a genius has framed a foolishness and shined something better left in a latrine. Or, IQ is one of the most over rated particulars and is almost always raised by people attempting to establish an authority otherwise less than self evident.

You don't believe in property rights, not real ones, for anyone but the State. Just man up and admit it, Town.

Next the manhood card. So what's that leave?

Like most people here, and most "Christians" throughout human history, you do not worship God. You worship the government.

Faith. That's the trifecta I think. Ah, kid. Have a good one. Here's hoping you put away that sort of foolishness at some point.

 

[Arthur Brain]

"Shoot me if you want to pig, but I will not tell you anything"... regardless of whether there are any Jews in your home or not.

In fact, I would DEFINITELY say this if there weren't any Jews in my home... good to waste a Nazi thug's time.

If there were any Jews you were harbouring then that answer would be down right stupid at best. You'd be inviting suspicion just by acting like such a prig. Realistically you'd be sweating through fear and trying to be as composed as possible so drop the 'macho' crap.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If there were any Jews you were harbouring then that answer would be down right stupid at best. You'd be inviting suspicion just by acting like such a prig.

While likely true I would likely "act like a prig" no matter what since I don't respect tyrants.

Realistically you'd be sweating through fear and trying to be as composed as possible so drop the 'macho' crap.

Probably, but that wasn't my point. I wasn't discussing my own fear or the fact that I do sin. I was saying that its possible not to give away the Jews in your home without lying.

 

[Arthur Brain]

While likely true I would likely "act like a prig" no matter what since I don't respect tyrants.

You have no idea how you'd respond under such circumstances and if you gave a tinkers cuss for any Jews you were protecting, along with your own life then you wouldn't act like the 'armchair hero' you're trying to portray here. You wouldn't be able to for starters.

Probably, but that wasn't my point. I wasn't discussing my own fear or the fact that I do sin. I was saying that its possible not to give away the Jews in your home without lying.

Possible but certainly not advisable and when approached from a realistic standpoint lying is the best way to go and convincingly at that if attainable. If it's a 'sin' to lie when protecting people from grievous harm and death if you don't then it's an unfunny joke. I had this debate a while back with Mike C who advised 'misdirection' as an alternative until the realism of such a scenario hit home. The sweat, the fear, the trying to remain composed where there's a squad of soldiers brandishing MP40s etc. Then the questions where you'd have to get ever more inventive to avoid an outright lie while still somehow being convincing that you've no 'undesirables' hiding in your home.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You have no idea how you'd respond under such circumstances and if you gave a tinkers cuss for any Jews you were protecting, along with your own life then you wouldn't act like the 'armchair hero' you're trying to portray here. You wouldn't be able to for starters.



Possible but certainly not advisable and when approached from a realistic standpoint lying is the best way to go and convincingly at that if attainable. If it's a 'sin' to lie when protecting people from grievous harm and death if you don't then it's an unfunny joke. I had this debate a while back with Mike C who advised 'misdirection' as an alternative until the realism of such a scenario hit home. The sweat, the fear, the trying to remain composed where there's a squad of soldiers brandishing MP40s etc. Then the questions where you'd have to get ever more inventive to avoid an outright lie while still somehow being convincing that you've no 'undesirables' hiding in your home.

I'm talking in theory here. Theoretical right vs theoretical wrong. I'm not trying to say I'd actually do anything other than give in to the pressure were I actually in the situation.

I would say, on principle, that it would be better not to lie and to trust God with the results. While I wouldn't judge anyone for it, in part because I'd likely do the same when it came down to it, I think that to lie when the Bible says not to lie would be a sin. Technically.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm talking in theory here. Theoretical right vs theoretical wrong. I'm not trying to say I'd actually do anything other than give in to the pressure were I actually in the situation.

I would say, on principle, that it would be better not to lie and to trust God with the results. While I wouldn't judge anyone for it, in part because I'd likely do the same when it came down to it, I think that to lie when the Bible says not to lie would be a sin. Technically.

Do you think there's a difference between a lie for personal gain and one where it benefits others? If you were put on the spot whereby the ONLY option would be to lie to protect other people from harm would you still consider that lie a sin?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you think there's a difference between a lie for personal gain and one where it benefits others? If you were put on the spot whereby the ONLY option would be to lie to protect other people from harm would you still consider that lie a sin?

I think so. I could be convinced otherwise, but I think it would be.

I do see a difference, mind you. One is done with good intent, which is a mitigating factor. But that doesn't make it right.

 

[Town Heretic]

I think so. I could be convinced otherwise, but I think it would be.

I do see a difference, mind you. One is done with good intent, which is a mitigating factor. But that doesn't make it right.

Of course it does. It is right to defend human life. It is wrong to place the vanity of our notion of principle reflecting ourselves over that, to value our sense of personal virtue more than what that virtue should serve.

Literature is a series of lies serving the truth, if you view it narrowly enough.

And remember what I said about intelligence a while back?

...Intelligence should serve, not enslave. So if it helps you help others, communicates a thing of importance in a way that's memorable, etc., I say go to. If it keeps you mindful of the difference between you and your neighbor in a way that invites contempt into your reflections then it would be better to do without it or without considering it further until it doesn't.

You really should have taken that to heart.

Sorry to interrupt, AB, I'm done here and I think you're likely wasting time, but good on you anyway. :cheers: