Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

Leave us alone?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cheers, but don't worry - I think he's just well on the conservative bandwagon and his age has finally got to him :thumb: :D

    Ad hom, ad hom, ad nausium.
    To be honest I don't think age has anything to do with it and shouldn't even be brought in to a debate like this.

    Sorry to go off topic, I just think ageism is a ridiculous card to play.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    To be honest I don't think age has anything to do with it and shouldn't even be brought in to a debate like this.

    Sorry to go off topic, I just think ageism is a ridiculous card to play.

    Yes, that was my point, the post you quoted was a sarchastic reply. I was saying his reference to my age was unsubstatiated, and made an equal, obviously irrelevant response to him, highlighted by "Ad hom, Ad hom, Ad Nausium". Read the thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    FIrst off: nowhere did Aladdin define the civilisation and humanisation of man as an increase in government spending.

    He said that an increase in government spending has led to the civilisation and humanisation of man; it has caused it. It is not synonymous with it.

    Did he say anything ? It looked like he tried to put words in my mouth, from which inference was drawn.

    He has not denied the inference thus far.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    God you're tedious.

    Please, call me schmuck, it is much less formal.
    jamelia wrote: »
    But to conclude, I will say this: of course all laws reduce your liberty to some extent. (I wouldn't say infringe, since this is a value-laden, moralised term).

    I will stick to infringe.

    As far as I am aware, the latin etymology suggests an encroachment.
    jamelia wrote: »
    But that doesn't establish that the existence of laws necessarily means a society is authoritarian, does it?

    A law,by definition, is authoritarian.
    jamelia wrote: »
    A law preventing you from stabbing people is hardly an authoritarian move. If anything, it protects my liberty form those who want to infringe it by stabbing me.

    I am not aware of any law that stops you stabbing people.

    If you believe that a written opinion backed by force will stop you getting stabbed, may I suggest you join me on a Critical Thinking course ?
    jamelia wrote: »
    So you've got to argue that there is something authoritarian or tyrannical about the content of specific laws, such as laws surrounding taxation. You can't just assume that; you've got to argue for it. Suggesting that it reduces your liberty is so obvious and banal as to be pointless. What you need to argue for is why such a reduction in your liberty is authoritarian or unjust.

    I was making observations not arguments. If a person is happy paying taxes, I will not act to prevent that happiness.

    Conversely, if they are not happy, I would suggest taking action to reduce the unhappiness that has resulted from an infringement of your liberty.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I'd rather live in a society in which children are not slaved for labour, the sick are not left to die through being unable to pay for healthcare, and those in need of help actually getting some, if it's all the same to you.

    Good for you.

    However, you seem to suggest that the means by which you attempt to achieve your goals are not important.

    If you can live with that,there is no need to remove the mirrors from your dwelling.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good for you.

    However, you seem to suggest that the means by which you attempt to achieve your goals are not important.

    If you can live with that,there is no need to remove the mirrors from your dwelling.
    Oh the means are important alright. And you should be happy as fuck about how we have gone about to achieve it, frankly.

    Another, far simpler solution would be to end the current situation where 350 individuals are said to own half the world's private wealth while 2 billion people don't even have access to water and 'live' on $1 a day, by redistributing that wealth a little better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Including laws of property. But libertarians always forget that one and assume somehow that the right to property is some sort of natural right, whereas the others are the infringement of a tyrannical government.

    I think many libertarians tend to argue that the former is the only legitimate role of government.
    Without a government, you have no property, you only have what you can keep hold of through the laws of nature. And the laws of nature say that if I'm bigger than you or have more guns than you and I want what you have, it's mine.

    Thereby highlighting a self referential paradox, perchance ?
    Funny how people always want the government to protect certain rights for them, yet when they protect different rights for other people that they don't stand to benefit from, suddenly the whole concept of government is the issue. And we'll conveniently ignore the fact that you only have personal wealth because we have a system of government that recognises it and protects it.

    I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

    I will have an attempt from what you have said. A person should accept being stolen from if the thief/thieves promises to protect what he/they leave behind ?
    Does it depress you that the countries that do what we suggest are the most successful by absolutely any measure you care to mention, whereas the ones that do what you suggest are......well Dubai?

    I may get depressed at the thought of being depressed about things out of my control but that, presently, is not a problem.

    Who is the "we" ? You make it sound like it is me against the world.

    I did not think I had made any suggestions, merely observations.

    What has Dubai got to do with anything ?

    Unless you are making reference to state owned corporations Dubai World and Nakheel getting into financial difficulties through excessive borrowing.

    More civilisation and humanisation perhaps ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Patronise much?

    This is a messageboard for young people to debate on, so you shouldn't use somebody's age against them.

    For 'im, not agin 'im.

    Read the thread. It was a positive statement.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    To be honest I don't think age has anything to do with it and shouldn't even be brought in to a debate like this.

    Sorry to go off topic, I just think ageism is a ridiculous card to play.

    Time to go, the ism police have arrived.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Time to go, the ism police have arrived.

    I think you should be more wary of the men in white coats arriving than the ism police.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you should be more wary of the men in white coats arriving than the ism police.
    :D
Sign In or Register to comment.