Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-02-2009, 01:00 PM   #11 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,533
Default

he's nothing special in terms of having a crazy political philosophy, especially compared to his fellow conservatives.
anticipation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 01:14 PM   #12 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Quote:
No, I am not. If you look at the definition of theocracy, it necessitates a government for a religion to rule over. If there is no government, there is no theocracy.
Religion can become a government.

Quote:
The government has no restraints, yet we still manage to live under it without being oppressed. There is, in fact, a restraint. It is the body the government rules, or the people.
Again, I don't even know what the argument you're making here is, you're stating the obvious, just in a way that's harder to understand because your way of phrasing things is incredibly confusing.

Quote:
Anyone who is remotely intellectual and pays attention to right-politics would know that he is more conservatives than the conservatives. I think he even said this all the time during his campaign. He wants to restore the country back to the state it had at the time of the constitution, minus the flaws like slavery.
So you admit he wants to go backwards instead of coming up with any progressive ideas.

Quote:
Secondly, reading your posts is like watching a liberal faux news. You never give me any quotes or such to back up your ridiculous statements. You might as well say we never landed on the moon. You will get just as much recognition at this point. I don't ask for quotes unless you go out and call some one "xenophobic."
Which btw reminds me, Paul wants to get rid of NASA too.

Quote:
That is absolutely right. We don't care about people unless they are a value to us. Thanks for stating the obvious and then manipulating it so that you make a group of people look "extra greedy." Humanitarianism is a stain on humanity, just like all of the duty ethics you propose. You voluntarilly chain yourself to others and expect me to do the same with my life. You recognize the physical realm, but the spiritual (not religious) realm means nothing. You propose a system where people are paid to survive because that is what makes people happy. A little more money to pay for that kids surgery, then he'll be closer to happiness. However, when it comes to what actually makes people happy, the self-esteem, you disregard it as if it is non-existent. Having money is a virtue to you. Having too much, a vice. Earning that money, an action that does not amount to anything. I judge that solely on your political stance, and the fact that you are so cynical (in the modern sense) when it comes to business men. You lump them all together and view them as people who tie others to machines to work long hours. However, you forget to mention the fact that you wish to tie them up to their machine too. Is their no double standard?
Try rephrasing this entire post, this time in a way that actually makes some damn sense.

I'm sorry if I believe a government is actually supposed to have a function, one that doesn't just include the protection of peoples rights, but even some forms of community service.

Wanting to disban the FBI and CIA is pretty much the definition of a ridiculously stingy psychopath.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 02:29 PM   #13 (permalink)
Existential Egoist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
Religion can become a government.
If that is what you mean to say, then I could throw in any irrational movement, such as humanitarianism, and call it a government.


Quote:
Again, I don't even know what the argument you're making here is, you're stating the obvious, just in a way that's harder to understand because your way of phrasing things is incredibly confusing.
You act as if the government we live under will always be right. Even if it went by popular opinion, like a democracy should, we could still be in the wrong. My point is that you are so cynical of business and religion, but when it comes to our government you look at it as if it will always be doing the right thing.

Quote:
So you admit he wants to go backwards instead of coming up with any progressive ideas.
Yes. I don't think Ron Paul is a great guy. I just think he is a better alternative than anyone right now. I don't like his religious tendencies or his subjective morality-libertarian views, but his political and economic philosophy is credible for the most part.

If you call getting in debt progressive, then Ron Paul is definitely your enemy. I never understood why that group of political ideas is called "Progressivism," when the heart of it is out to destroy the mind. I mean, when you tell someone to neglect themselves, you can expect to go backwards.

Quote:
Try rephrasing this entire post, this time in a way that actually makes some damn sense.

I'm sorry if I believe a government is actually supposed to have a function, one that doesn't just include the protection of peoples rights, but even some forms of community service.
To put it in a basic form, your politics are based on no philosophy. You accept the fact that we are to live for others. You look down upon people who are selfish, greedy, and stingy. Why is it wrong, though? On what basis can you accuse someone for being evil when they are selfish?

Also, the idea that having the government run some areas of business is preposterous. What establishes the price for the government's work? Things like socialized health care are what I am mainly talking about because The doctors will not be able to gain more pay through competition. The doctor should be able to choose how much he wants to work for. If the government allowed him to do this, he could just rob the government of money because they would have to pay them. So the government will have to establish a price. How are they to find the right price? What is the right price? Is there an objective price for work, or is the value of work based on supply and demand?
Inuzuka Skysword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 07:10 PM   #14 (permalink)
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,920
Default

i actually had the opportunity to attend a lecture given by Ron Paul. he certainly isn't as crazy as people make him out to be, and his "radical" ideas are pretty much common sense for the most part. he's far from being a theocratic conservative, although he's "right wing" in the economic and political sense.

while i don't necessarily agree with his approach to economics (pure excise taxes would be atrocious for the working class), he's an intelligent and frank politician -- two qualities rarely seen anywhere in Washington. i'd much rather see him in office than any of those other, savvier political fucks. too bad he wasn't on the ballot in PA.
__________________
first.am
lucifer_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2009, 03:10 AM   #15 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword View Post
If that is what you mean to say, then I could throw in any irrational movement, such as humanitarianism, and call it a government.
The difference is that humanitarianism has no claims to moral absolutes, so it can't become a strict government.
The Unfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 12:40 PM   #16 (permalink)
Existential Egoist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan View Post
The difference is that humanitarianism has no claims to moral absolutes, so it can't become a strict government.
In other words, it claims that there is no objective morality. If this is the case, then morality becomes a wild card where anyone can force anyone else to do anything. Humanitarianism does claim to support a morality though. It has ethics that are based on duty in that you are responsible for the well being of everyone else on this planet.

I am not anti-government. I think that Objectivist politics, which are related to libertarianism, are deceiving. If anything, I am pro-government when it comes to the enforcement of the law and the protection of individual rights. I believe that there should be a very strong government in those areas. However, I disagree that the government should be strong in the economic area. It interferes on the happiness of those who live under it. The market which was (theoretically) run by strict supply and demand is now run by a person picking who should survive and who should not. I don't believe anyone should be making that choice.

Last edited by Inuzuka Skysword; 08-06-2009 at 03:23 PM.
Inuzuka Skysword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 03:12 PM   #17 (permalink)
Occams Razor
 
Son of JayJamJah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: End of the Earth
Posts: 2,470
Default

Ron Paul is far from crazy, thanks to Lucifer Sam for interjecting some reason. While it's certainly debatable that he is qualified to be the president, I like his ideas and common sense approach way better then any other candidate we've had this decade. Boo Boo, your opinion on him couldn't be any farther from the way I've experienced him listening to him speak, reading what he writes and reviewing his political record. Also Unfan agrees with you, the same Unfan who thinks it's a good idea to claim Led Zeppelin stole much of the music they made famous.
__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent View Post
i prefer foreplay. the orgasm is overrated.
If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread
Son of JayJamJah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 03:22 PM   #18 (permalink)
Existential Egoist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,468
Default

Ron Paul's writing isn't too good. I read The Revolution: A Manifesto because it was on sale. It really is just Constitution worship in a simple form for everyone to understand. Some of the writings he recommends at the end aren't too bad including Ayn Rand's works, Mises' works, and some of Rothbard's. I don't really think that Libertarianism is good though seeing that it is devoid of any moral base and even the name suggests that liberty is the end which it seeks. Objectivism sees man's own life, his pursuit of happiness, as the end. Objectivism claims to know the objective morality, whereas most arguments for Libertarianism defend it because of the opposite. Politically they are similar. Everywhere else they are much different.
Inuzuka Skysword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 03:26 PM   #19 (permalink)
Occams Razor
 
Son of JayJamJah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: End of the Earth
Posts: 2,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword View Post
Ron Paul's writing isn't too good. I read The Revolution: A Manifesto because it was on sale. It really is just Constitution worship in a simple form for everyone to understand. Some of the writings he recommends at the end aren't too bad including Ayn Rand's works, Mises' works, and some of Rothbard's. I don't really think that Libertarianism is good though seeing that it is devoid of any moral base and even the name suggests that liberty is the end which it seeks. Objectivism sees man's own life, his pursuit of happiness, as the end. Objectivism claims to know the objective morality, whereas most arguments for Libertarianism defend it because of the opposite. Politically they are similar. Everywhere else they are much different.
I enjoyed it quite a bit and thought he did an excellent job of working in plain speak to reach as many open minds as possible.

You and I will always branch apart when it comes to the origins and foundations of morality. Morality in my experience is inherent to the individual and the environment in which they grow up. I find individual Liberty and it's preservation one of the most morally sound pursuits imaginable.
__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent View Post
i prefer foreplay. the orgasm is overrated.
If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread
Son of JayJamJah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 04:09 PM   #20 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword View Post
In other words, it claims that there is no objective morality.
No, it just doesn't make a moral claim.

Quote:
Humanitarianism does claim to support a morality though. It has ethics that are based on duty in that you are responsible for the well being of everyone else on this planet.
There is a difference between ethics and morality. Humanitarianism requires a strong sense of ethics, but not a strong sense of morality, or even any sense of morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayJamJah
Morality in my experience is inherent to the individual and the environment in which they grow up. I find individual Liberty and it's preservation one of the most morally sound pursuits imaginable.
A million times this. Morality is not something which can be objectively right or wrong; it is simply an opinion of good and bad based on your upbringing and/or natural inclinations. Is murdering someone ever good? Maybe. Is it ethical? No.
The Unfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.