I think you're in love with the slippery slope.

Perhaps, but in both cases the sites would have been established by self righteous and dangerously certain individuals who simply wish to insulate themselves from conflicting opinion. The whole concept of creating an encyclopedia with an obvious bias is moronic.

What? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Altruism doesn't preclude a man to value his survival, it's entirely possible to concern yourself with both your own life and others. I certainly try to give to others, sometimes at the expense of my own wishes (altruism), but I am still a rational human being.

You seem to be advocating greed and a self-centered approach to life which you try to justify to yourself by calling altruism evil.

Its certainly a lot smoother than other slopes.

But it's implying that the flood stuff is a possibility.
What are you talking about? Marxism developed as an attack on liberalism, or rather its economic doctrine, capitalism. They are fundamentally opposed. It is true that certain parts of the liberal movement was influenced by socialist ideas and developed into social liberalism, particularly in John Stuart Mill's doctrine. But Marx's ideas about the proletariat's complete control over the means of production, among other things, goes against the basic philosophies of liberalism.

Are you definining liberalism strictly as classical liberalism?

No, but you said that "Marxism borrows heavily from liberalism", which means that Marx in the mid 19th century borrowed from contemporary liberalism, what we now call classical liberalism, which is outright false.

The only thing liberalism and Marxism have in common is that they're both children of the Enlightenment, but socialism or ideas similar to it had existed long before Marx came along.

Marxism has very similar ideas to liberalism, at least theoretically. Especially in regards to culture. They both want to grant the people as many freedoms as possible with as little government interaction as possible. Both classical liberalism and marxism make the assumption that the people know what is best for their own persons. The key difference is that liberalism embraces the class divide where Marx assumed it was the cause of a lot of problems.

of course it's a possiblity. what the fuck do you know about any of that sort of stuff?

Well, the Marxists assume that the proletariat all have common needs and wants. There isn't an individual perspective on the personal needs of the single worker (or farmer). They rather lump them all together and claim to know what each and everyone of them wants. You're right though that both Marxism and liberalism assume than man is at heart good.
How is a possibility? It's not supported by factual evidence. Just because it's written down in some fictional story in an old book doesn't put it on the same level as scientific theories.

Oh I totally agree. I just wanted to make sure that everyone didn't just bash on conservatives as if they are the only absolute evil.

Altruism specifically calls for putting another's interests above your own. If this is the case, then you put another's life before your own. If you put another life before your own, you do not care about your own survival because your own life is not your highest value.

Giving to others isn't necessarily altruism. You can give to others in your own rational self interest. It is just that you must never give more than you will receive. Otherwise you are irrational.

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary edition

Now I do not follow this philosophy because I am irrational and chose religion (Christianity,) but this philosophy is the most logical philosophy out there.

Rational self-interest.