Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
Let's compromise and agree that politicians will do whatever they want regardless of whether or not we vote for them.
Hey that kind of sounds like one of the reasons why they're not trustworthy.
And yes that article is absolutely a sales pitch.
|
^ Yes, I could go along with that, although I'd prefer to swap the word "will" for "maybe quite often in some circumstances might."
__________________________________________________ __________________
ME: Why is the "lesser of two evils" approach so criticised?
MERIT: Because you're voting to get f*cked over, just to a lesser degree.
ME AGAIN: Well, if you're f*cked over to a lesser degree, then you might arrive at this point:
Also, by not voting, you abdicate all say in how f*cked over you are, so if anything, [MERIT] you seem to be supporting the idea that you should vote for the lesser evil. Thanks, I think.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
Lisnaholic
You should at least come to a basic understanding of anarchism before you start citing examples like the Rwandan genocide as representative of the ideology in action.
Try the Pueblo Indians at their best.
If you’re just going to disregard it without educating yourself then (and I’m not trying to be rude) please don’t comment on it
|
^ Maybe anarchism doesn't always end up in chaos. I forgot that some communities of like-minded thinkers, hippies and hunter-gatherers have been able to live in peaceful anarchy. But in the more prevalent modern circumstance, where resources are scarce and guns are plentiful, I don't think anarchy works very well, esp for the vulnerable. Still, I take your point and will def look at the Pueblo Indians. If I have the patience I'll educate myself a bit more on anarchy, though tbh, in the new tradition of internet debate, I may just trawl though wikipedia until I find some zingers that will support my position.
