[Business Insider] IT'S OFFICIAL: The Whole World Thinks Republicans Are Dangerous Maniacs Threateni - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Turnips5;31218883]His philosophy is the polar opposite of Ayn Rand you nonce[/QUOTE] Sorry some of us don't all keep tabs on every single member's political stance.

[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;31218913]Sorry some of us don't all keep tabs on every single member's political stance.[/QUOTE] who the hell are you if you're arguing vehemently with someone about their political stances I'd expect you to know what their political stances were [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] but you're not, so I don't, so that's okay

I just see authoritarianism as rather pragmatic, because the less authoritarian a government is, the less things are effectively done in the nation, with the rights of a person, health, wellbeing, etc not directly related to the authority of the government. At least in an authoritarian one (Run by a pragmatic person/party) I know things will improve but in the case of a democracy its a popular contest where separate factions vie for control and do not really see it in their self interest to actually improve the country, and only to make sure they are re-elected.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;31218883]His philosophy is the polar opposite of Ayn Rand you nonce [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] objectivism says that individuals have absolute right and their government should have a minimal say in things authoritarianism says that the government owns everyone and fuck you if you think otherwise[/QUOTE] You act like objectivists don't pull the same hypocrisy the religious right does and just go "Oh well I have rights X Y and Z and you have the right to be poor and go die and stay out of my government" all the time. Hell, they act authoritarian within their own special secret clubs (smoking is mandatory, bro, brave and fearless leader said so.) It's not much of a leap for people who haven't really thought through either, and Objectivism is so internally inconsistent anyway that isn't not really odd for somebody to say the two mesh.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;31219406]You act like objectivists don't pull the same hypocrisy the religious right does and just go "Oh well I have rights X Y and Z and you have the right to be poor and go die and stay out of my government" all the time. Hell, they act authoritarian within their own special secret clubs (smoking is mandatory, bro, brave and fearless leader said so.) It's not much of a leap for people who haven't really thought through either, and Objectivism is so internally inconsistent anyway that isn't not really odd for somebody to say the two mesh.[/QUOTE] If there's anything I'm really, really not it's objectivist Maybe the philosophical realism thing I could agree with (is that even a part of it? I don't know) but everything else about it is truly horrible (social Darwinism etc.) Looking back on that post I made it look like I was putting objectivism in a favourable light which I certainly didn't mean to do. The two extremes are equally awful. [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] On the surface it seems like they'd be ideologically opposed, is what I'm trying to say.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31218996]I just see authoritarianism as rather pragmatic, because the less authoritarian a government is, the less things are effectively done in the nation, with the rights of a person, health, wellbeing, etc not directly related to the authority of the government. At least in an authoritarian one (Run by a pragmatic person/party) I know things will improve but in the case of a democracy its a popular contest where separate factions vie for control and do not really see it in their self interest to actually improve the country, and only to make sure they are re-elected.[/QUOTE] Authoritarianism doesn't guarantee things will improve. It guarantees things will improve for the people at the top but a state is comprised of everyone in it and if they're all starving or ready to revolt at a moment's notice the state will be weak and ineffective. Look at Libya: you think they could fight off a foreign invader with the citizens harbouring such hatred for the government, for example? (I'm using these examples because you like talking about military might so much)

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31219720]Authoritarianism doesn't guarantee things will improve. It guarantees things will improve for the people at the top but a state is comprised of everyone in it and if they're all starving or ready to revolt at a moment's notice the state will be weak and ineffective. Look at Libya: you think they could fight off a foreign invader with the citizens harbouring such hatred for the government, for example? (I'm using these examples because you like talking about military might so much)[/QUOTE] It doesn't guarantee things will improve, that's what the ruling party decides to do. When it does however an authoritarian party will bring in more improvements in less time than it's counterpart, generally because it has the power to do so. And I do not improve it at the top or bottom, I mean overall. Plus for most of human history most nations have been run by absolute hereditary monarchs, with many people viewing that by leaving the job to such a person they would ensure the country was well looked after, seeing that the self interest of a monarch is the same of that of the people he rules. The reason I see a dictatorship as superior is because a monarchy can end up with children whom are weak rulers or inbred, and generally you have to be quite skilful to end up on top as a dictator, meaning if correctly done a authoritarian dictatorship can successfully run a country for many years, bringing improvements rapidly to the nation as a whole. Unfortunately in a number of cases many dictators have gone insane, or are incompetent. However a democracy has it's failings as well in that useful people can be voted out and useless ones voted in, based on their popularity.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;31219505]Maybe the philosophical realism thing I could agree with (is that even a part of it? I don't know)[/QUOTE] Last I checked they were as far from reality as humanly possible after the refusal to believe in quantum physics because anything which remotely relates to Kant by way of history or probabilities is evil and must be purged. Check this shit: [QUOTE]However, for the past century, theoretical physicists have been sending a different message. They have rejected causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of contradictions, and reality in favor of fantasy. The science of physics is now riddled with claims that are as absurd as those of any religious cult. History shows that philosophers provided the irrational ideas, which physicists then incorporated into their theories. Philosophy is the inescapable foundation for physics, and the irrationalism of modern philosophy is the quicksand that engulfed physics in the 20th century. Mr. Harriman argues that our future depends upon saving physics—which can only be done by providing it with the solid ground of a rational philosophy.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31219846]It doesn't guarantee things will improve, that's what the ruling party decides to do. When it does however an authoritarian party will bring in more improvements in less time than it's counterpart, generally because it has the power to do so. And I do not improve it at the top or bottom, I mean overall. Plus for most of human history most nations have been run by absolute hereditary monarchs, with many people viewing that by leaving the job to such a person they would ensure the country was well looked after, seeing that the self interest of a monarch is the same of that of the people he rules. The reason I see a dictatorship as superior is because a monarchy can end up with children whom are weak rulers or inbred, and generally you have to be quite skilful to end up on top as a dictator, meaning if correctly done a authoritarian dictatorship can successfully run a country for many years, bringing improvements rapidly to the nation as a whole. Unfortunately in a number of cases many dictators have gone insane, or are incompetent. However a democracy has it's failings as well in that useful people can be voted out and useless ones voted in, based on their popularity.[/QUOTE] I don't know. You seem to think a dictatorship forms because the dictator is the most effective person at running the country but I think in this era it would just form because the dictator has the most money.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;31218883]His philosophy is the polar opposite of Ayn Rand you nonce [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] objectivism says that individuals have absolute right and their government should have a minimal say in things authoritarianism says that the government owns everyone and fuck you if you think otherwise[/QUOTE] Objectivisim is a hedonist idea as well, it thinks Selfishness is good and it means to blur the line as to what exactly is selfish in an attempt to make everything seem selfish. This is, word for word, what Sobotnik is doing as is Ayn Rand's essay Vice of Selfishness. [editline]20th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;31219846]It doesn't guarantee things will improve, that's what the ruling party decides to do. When it does however an authoritarian party will bring in more improvements in less time than it's counterpart, generally because it has the power to do so. And I do not improve it at the top or bottom, I mean overall. Plus for most of human history most nations have been run by absolute hereditary monarchs, with many people viewing that by leaving the job to such a person they would ensure the country was well looked after, seeing that the self interest of a monarch is the same of that of the people he rules. The reason I see a dictatorship as superior is because a monarchy can end up with children whom are weak rulers or inbred, and generally you have to be quite skilful to end up on top as a dictator, meaning if correctly done a authoritarian dictatorship can successfully run a country for many years, bringing improvements rapidly to the nation as a whole. Unfortunately in a number of cases many dictators have gone insane, or are incompetent. However a democracy has it's failings as well in that useful people can be voted out and useless ones voted in, based on their popularity.[/QUOTE] Sobotnik advocates a dictatorship, but wouldn't be caught dead under one.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;31220527]Last I checked they were as far from reality as humanly possible after the refusal to believe in quantum physics because anything which remotely relates to Kant by way of history or probabilities is evil and must be purged. Check this shit:[/QUOTE] Oh. Well, fuck that too then. :v:

[QUOTE=amute;31225653]Objectivisim is a hedonist idea as well, it thinks Selfishness is good and it means to blur the line as to what exactly is selfish in an attempt to make everything seem selfish. This is, word for word, what Sobotnik is doing as is Ayn Rand's essay Vice of Selfishness.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying selfishness is good. What I am saying is that every human on earth has this trait and in order to create a better world we exploit the selfish traits of each human. I don't want the capitalism and lassiz faire of Ayn Rand. I see that having a planned economy/state capitalism is much better as the governing party can directly focus much of the resources of the nation into one thing. If one nation effectively ruled the entire world (Without too much internal dissent) it can wipe out poverty within it's borders. Britain managed to do this after WW2 very effectively. The reason it could do this is because it will have the authority to, the power to and the resources to. And why would this be in the governments best interests? Because a healthy happy human is a productive one. [QUOTE=Zeke129;31220864]I don't know. You seem to think a dictatorship forms because the dictator is the most effective person at running the country but I think in this era it would just form because the dictator has the most money.[/QUOTE] One could always change a democracy into one in a series of three great reforms. Firstly the voting age could be lowered to infancy, and each year the human can choose if it wishes to take a test or not. If it passes the test (A fairly basic one, with no bias towards any party but a focus on pragmatism) it can vote. Next you establish that in order to vote you must have passed all compulsory education in the state (So up to the age of 18 for example) Next after this you establish that the only people who can vote are those who have a degree from a university and the only candidates are those whom have a degree as well. If done correctly you will end up giving power to a small number of people who are highly intelligent and pragmatic. A meritocracy/technocracy (Depending on what degrees you need). And if these people are highly intelligent and pragmatic they can very rapidly and efficiently fix problems and improve the world, seeing that they have the power to do so and know what to do. Unlike many other government forms that either have people who cannot fix problems, do not have the power to do so or worst of all they suffer from both, in which case the country is shit no matter what government form it is.

Not really following what's going on but my opinion hasn't changed, nor has anyone else's(I think). People should get what they work for. If everything is just handed to them they're a burden to the community. HumanAbyss is an idiot.

[QUOTE=Teracotta;31232578] People should get what they work for. If everything is just handed to them they're a burden to the community. HumanAbyss is an idiot.[/QUOTE] Your problem is that you're assuming everyone starts on a level playing field and [i]remains[/i] on that level playing field throughout their lives.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31232644]Your problem is that you're assuming everyone starts on a level playing field.[/QUOTE] Not at all. It doesn't matter where someone starts. All that matters is what they do and where they finish.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31200371]Obviously I can't speak for anyone except myself, but I have lived a pretty low-class life. However you did not answer my question. How do you know that poor people are only poor because they don't work hard enough? What reasoning do you have to back this up?[/QUOTE] Care to respond to this, Teracotta?

[QUOTE=Teracotta;31232578]Not really following what's going on but my opinion hasn't changed, nor has anyone else's(I think). People should get what they work for. If everything is just handed to them they're a burden to the community. HumanAbyss is an idiot.[/QUOTE] And I think spoiled rich kids are a burden to society ie you

As stated before, that was a generalization in line with the generalizations about Republicans and Democrats or Christians and Atheists. Neither is totally correct nor should they be. It's about finding a balance in between. amute, your insults are pathetic. If anyone would like to continue this add me on steam so we can chat, I have to work a banquet at the moment.

[QUOTE=Teracotta;31232748]Not at all. It doesn't matter where someone starts. All that matters is what they do and where they finish.[/QUOTE] It absolutely does matter where someone starts.

[QUOTE=Teracotta;31232892]As stated before, that was a generalization in line with the generalizations about Republicans and Democrats or Christians and Atheists. Neither is totally correct nor should they be. It's about finding a balance in between. amute, your insults are pathetic. If anyone would like to continue this add me on steam so we can chat, I have to work a banquet at the moment.[/QUOTE] you ignore every single point given to you by everyone in this thread and then call Humanabyss an idiot for no reason, when, if you actually read his posts you would realise he isn't an idiot and is actually rather bright, you on the other hand, do no seem to want to offer a point, only act like a stubborn brat and keep your same deluded ideas even though we've all refuted it. That is pathetic, me calling you a spoiled child isn't, it's the truth.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31232922]It absolutely does matter where someone starts.[/QUOTE] Sometimes you start out crap and poor. (Like Andrew Carnegie or England in 1485)

And most of the time, you stay that way.

[QUOTE=amute;31234345]And most of the time, you stay that way.[/QUOTE] Like the newly formed USA or the early Muscovite state. Or the small kingdoms in Northern Spain after the Moors stopped expanding. Or the small duchy of Prussia. You may also include the tiny town of Rome or the Dutch Republic in some poor marshy land on the coast of the North Sea. Perhaps a painter in poverty in early 20th century Vienna. Perhaps most interesting of all, a small 12 year old boy called Temüjin who lived off nuts and berries in the late 12th century after his father was murdered.

Do you have a point or no?

[QUOTE=Teracotta;31232578]Not really following what's going on but my opinion hasn't changed, nor has anyone else's(I think). People should get what they work for. If everything is just handed to them they're a burden to the community. HumanAbyss is an idiot.[/QUOTE] Shut up, you've had it easy but pretends to have had it hard. It's a mentality like that that's the reason there's a fuckload of poor people stuck in a shitty situation they just can't get out of. Because people refuse to help them on their feet until they can manage it on their own again. Next you'd be saying that [I]trickle down[/I] economy actually works.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31234511]Like the newly formed USA or the early Muscovite state. Or the small kingdoms in Northern Spain after the Moors stopped expanding. Or the small duchy of Prussia. You may also include the tiny town of Rome or the Dutch Republic in some poor marshy land on the coast of the North Sea. Perhaps a painter in poverty in early 20th century Vienna. Perhaps most interesting of all, a small 12 year old boy called Temüjin who lived off nuts and berries in the late 12th century after his father was murdered.[/QUOTE] So your argument is that poor people are lazy for not being Genghis Khan.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31234511]Like the newly formed USA or the early Muscovite state. Or the small kingdoms in Northern Spain after the Moors stopped expanding. Or the small duchy of Prussia. You may also include the tiny town of Rome or the Dutch Republic in some poor marshy land on the coast of the North Sea. Perhaps a painter in poverty in early 20th century Vienna. Perhaps most interesting of all, a small 12 year old boy called Temüjin who lived off nuts and berries in the late 12th century after his father was murdered.[/QUOTE] Those people and organizations out of how many others?

[QUOTE=amute;31233856] A. you ignore every single point given to you by everyone in this thread and then B. call Humanabyss an idiot for no reason, when, if you actually read his posts you would realise he isn't an idiot and is actually rather bright, C.you on the other hand, do no seem to want to offer a point, D. only act like a stubborn brat and E. keep your same deluded ideas F. even though we've all refuted it. G. That is pathetic, me calling you a spoiled child isn't, it's the truth.[/QUOTE] Okay, in case anyone is to stupid, I've added shit to his post for better organization. A. I have ignored nothing. I took all points into consideration and decided they did not change my views. B. HumanAbyss is an imbecile. Not everything everyone does is selfish. Stop trying to drag other shit into this argument. C. I have voiced my opinion and the point of it many times, you are just to fucking retarded to understand. D. Stubborn brat? I give my two cents and you "attempt" to jump down my throat. You are a dumbass who doesn't understand what a brat is. If anything, a brat world be a child with a democratic ideal because they expect to be given what they wish. E. No shit, its my fucking opinion. F. You've refuted nothing, shut the fuck up. G. No, that's not the truth. You're a huge fucking retard. Die in a hole. If you're going to argur with someone try to be less of a dumbass. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming, calm down." - Dav0r))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=CatFodder;31234687]So your argument is that poor people are lazy for not being Genghis Khan.[/QUOTE] No. Poor people do tend to work quite hard. Amute however seems to make it out that absolutely every poor person is born into their class, and has absolutely no method of improving their condition. The real case is that nowadays no such class structure exists any-more seeing that it broke down over the course of the preceding century. I also note that Amute and Terracotta are possibly taking things a tiny little bit too far.

[QUOTE=Teracotta;31235465]Okay, in case anyone is to stupid, I've added shit to his post for better organization. A. I have ignored nothing. I took all points into consideration and decided they did not change my views. B. HumanAbyss is an imbecile. Not everything everyone does is selfish. Stop trying to drag other shit into this argument. C. I have voiced my opinion and the point of it many times, you are just to fucking retarded to understand. D. Stubborn brat? I give my two cents and you "attempt" to jump down my throat. You are a dumbass who doesn't understand what a brat is. If anything, a brat world be a child with a democratic ideal because they expect to be given what they wish. E. No shit, its my fucking opinion. F. You've refuted nothing, shut the fuck up. G. No, that's not the truth. You're a huge fucking retard. Die in a hole. If you're going to argur with someone try to be less of a dumbass.[/QUOTE] The moment you go out of the way to insult someone is the exact moment you lose the argument.